Borders, Diplomacy and Nukes

[Camikaze]

Differences in civics would definitely be the way to go. If, for example, there was to be an expansion of civics as I mentioned in another thread (~10 categories with ~10 options each), then there being higher diplomatic penalties for bigger differences in civics. For example, you would get a bigger penalty between two civs with Universal Suffrage and Police State than you would between two civs with Universal Suffrage and Representation.

 

[pesgores]

I am totally opposed to the AIs acting as obstacles rather than opponents. I don't support any game mechanic (that I can think of) that upholds this, so this wouldn't be a positive change, IMO.

Well, I didn't name the AIs obstacles instead of opponents myself, it was some experienced player. But I have to agree, because those stupid AIs vote for other civs even when for diplomatic victory.

 

[CarlGustaffa]

A temporary open border agreement (5 turns?) that only small stacks (5 units?) can use. In order to get spotter units out of an enclosed cultural border which you have to DoW just to get out. Insane. And do they ever forget? Naaah, despite not loosing a unit.

I agree, nuclear weapons should act as a deterrent without actually having to use them.

 

[pesgores]

Also, make it possible to gift units and ask/demand for them on Diplomacy.

 

[Camikaze]

The game really needs to be diversified in order for unit trading to be a feasible option. At the moment, every civ has to focus on military, and relinquishing the military edge is never really a good move. However, if economics or other similar factors were made more important, then there would be scope for a mercenary trade, with different civs specialising in equally important areas.