Better Aliances

[Nate128]

If there is one aspect of Civilization that always ticked me off, it was the extremely weak aliances. During almost every war in history, when two nations were allied, they worked together and decided their plan of attack.In civilization on the other hand, its just a way to rope a civ into a war for 20 turns. I am sick and tired of having Military aliances where I end up doing all the fighting. Also when 2 nations sign an alliance, theyu have to agree to send a certain number of troops into battle or they take a rep hit. Maybe they should have a new interface, similar to the negotiation one, where two or more allied civs decide on their next plan of attack. It might be the difficult for the AI but if they could handle it, I feel a "War room" of sorts would be a great additon.

 

[douche_bag]

Good idea.It usually costs alot to bribe other nations into fighting with you, even though they barley attack.They could also send their own troops to defend one of you're weak cities if an MPP has been signed.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Its been a while since I have played it but, wasn't it possible to co-ordinate attacks with your allies in SMAC? If so, and given that civ3 was built upon the SMAC engine, then it seems ludicrous that you couldn't do it in civ3 as well!
Another point, though, is that an alliance should be a GENERAL agreement of military co-operation, not neccessarily directed at a specific enemy. i.e., I should be able to ring up and say 'hi, would you like to enter into a military alliance?' Agreement to an alliance treaty would act as an RoP agreement between your nations, allow each nation to station units in the cities, forts, airfields and naval bases of the other party and, most importantly, allow you to co-ordinate attacks with each other. In addition, I feel that an alliance should bring economic benefits, such as perhaps preferential trade deals and/or a gpt bonus on all existing trades!
Anyway, just a thought!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[von Bismarck]

If I am not mistaken, SMAC had the opportunity to say: We suggest you attack [city]!

 

[Trade-peror]

Allowing for stronger alliances would be a good addition to Civ diplomacy, but there should be ways to prevent exploitation by a human AI. Although this may involve some improvement on the AI's part as well, I would consider some kind of system that keeps track of how much each party in an alliance has benefited from it, and then require that each beneficiary contribute to the alliance accordingly.

For example, if Civ A and Civ B are in an alliance but Civ B seems to be defending Civ A most of the time, and Civ A intentionally relies on this to concentrate funds elsewhere, then Civ A is exploiting Civ B and Civ B would be foolish not to require some other contribution of Civ A for the alliance to be mutually beneficial. However, if Civ A and Civ B each derive fair benefits from the alliance, their bond should become stronger, and their cooperation and toleration of each other's faults should be greater.

Of course, none of this should be hard-coded or rigid, but some general system must exist to prevent players from exploiting alliances that are long-term.