CALL TO FIRAXIS: please add diplomacy option "end war with..."

[monkspider]

(borrowed from Apolyton user oddible)

"It would seem that there is a missing Diplomatic Agreement in CivIII. That to ask a civ to end a war with another civ. (As is evidenced in current global conditions, this isn't exactly terribly effective). I only played CTP and CivIII and do seem to recall this being an option in CTP. I can think of many scenarios where this would be something I would like to do. If I am attacking a civ because of a Mutual Protection Pact I could force a Peace Treaty with both me and my ally by making a condition of peace with me peace with my allies as well. Where did this go?

Now I'm left to completely crush an enemy to get them to sign a peace treaty with my ally first. I guess I'm looking for ways to lighten the burden of war. Frustrated...

Story:
In a two continent game, I share my continent 60/40 with the Germans. The other continent has England, India, China & Japan. India and Japan signed a MPP and began a war that due to other MPPs caused a world war with everyone else vs. them. Due to finishing off the Zulus on our continent, Germany and I couldn't get involved on the other continent at first. With 2 cities left, I dropped three transports worth of tanks and mech inf into China and saved their asses from the Japanese - forcing Japan back to their previous borders. I'm about to start giving cities back to China when lo and behold Germany and England start a war and draw in China in an MPP against Germany! Well after this huge war my resources are strapped and I'm not about to get into it with Germany but I don't want them to polish off China either. So what can I do?

If I ring China's (now 4) cities with mech inf will they attack me to get at the Germans (who will surely crush them)? Will the Germans attack me to get at the Chinese?

I want to tell the Germans to cease war with the Chinese! I'll pay them! I exhausted incredible resources to spare the Chinese and now they're about to go down to my closest ally (and most dangerous - panzers, ouch).

The only way I've ever been able to resolve this in the past would be to let Germany overrun China and just make sure I've got plenty of cities on the new continent as well (sometimes even attacking China myself to get those coveted cities with wonders). Jeesh.

War is rampant. Once a country is at war, it would seem that they are more likely to start another war with another civ if they sign Peace with the first. Crazy."



I *STRONGLY* agree with the thoughts of this poster, the times I have wanted to see such an option are too many to count. This would be a fairly simple thing to program too, in the grand scheme of things at least.
Please help send a message to Firaxis that we would like to see this option in a future update!

 

[DamnDirtyApe]

Nevermind peace, I want to be able to pay civs to go to war with other civs without getting myself involved! Many times have I wished I could convince someone else to start a war against a bitter enemy while I am recovering from my last war...

 

[Zouave]

Yes, BOTH of those have long been valid complaints about about Civ III.

The British in the Napoleonic Wars specialized in hiring other states, such as Austria, to go to war against the French.

Send complaints to Firaxis: http://www.firaxis.com/contact_gamefeedback.cfm

 

[IronicWarrior19]

I think you guys should get a bit of practise playing at deity level first before whininig, because as it is, you all suck at this game.

 

[sumthinelse]

In World War 2, about 2 years after Pearl Harbor, the war was going steadily worse for the Japanese. Tojo, the Japanese Defense Minister, asked his diplomat what it would take to make peace with the Americans. The ambassidor replied that it was easier to start a war than to end it. That also seems to be true in CIV3.

 

[monkspider]

*punt*
thanks for the support folks, i think this would be a fairly simple thing for Firaxis to add. Let's keep up the support, Firaxis is a company who likes to listen to the fan's requests (look at the stacked movement thing for example).

 

[monkspider]

I reccemend everyone contact the Firaxis customer request page, it takes but 2 minutes, and you can even copy/paste my message, which I will post below if you want.

Request to add "end war with X country" to list of diplomacy options.

Dear Firaxis,
Thanks for the greatest game I have ever owned. I have but one request, I would like to see a diplomatic option to request that a country end it's war with X country. Say, you talk to India and tell them to end their war with Egypt, possibly for a price. This would be a fairly simple thing to add in a future patch. Just add some new AI programming, a new line of text to the diplomacy screen, and voila! Please take this under serious consideration.
Thanks in advance,
Dustin Bond

 

[napoleon526]

Originally posted by Zouave
Yes, BOTH of those have long been valid complaints about about Civ III.

The British in the Napoleonic Wars specialized in hiring other states, such as Austria, to go to war against the French.

Send complaints to Firaxis: http://www.firaxis.com/contact_gamefeedback.cfm

Correct. Between 1793 and 1815, Britain organized five different coallitions against France. Due to the fact that Britain controlled the sea routes, they were incredibly wealthy. By the end of the war, they were paying something like 2 million pounds for every 100,000 troops Austria, Russia, and Prussia would put into the field against Napoleon.

 

[JoseM]

yeah i agree, firaxis should add that diplomatic option, i lost 2 allies because that option wasnt able, im very sure if that option was able then those allies would be my allies right now... now they r my enemies, but this could have been avoided if this diplomatic option was avaible.

 

[Razorwing]

That option sounds like a good idea.

I've always wanted a diplomatic option to "declare peace" on an enemy I'm at war with. For those moments when they've bred onto a distant continent/island and are down to a couple of cities. I don't want those cities and it will be a lot of work putting together transports and units, to annihilate an enemy that will never become a threat again but refuses to sign a peace treaty. Sometimes civs behave that way, if they've been beaten too badly they refuse to see peace as an option, and unless I do destroy them they will keep my cities rioting.

Anyways, my "declare peace" option would be a one-sided affair. If the player takes that step, it's best to not have any fighting at all, and it's crucial that the player doesn't loose any units, because the populace have been told the war is over. They can believe some 'skirmishes due to border confusion' -- where the enemy attacks and loses against a player unit -- but they will be very upset if whole platoons were wiped out.

 

[hzm]

It'll add a touch of superpower to proxy relations to the game.

 

[monkspider]

thanks for the support folks! try to email Firaxis your thoughts too if you have the time.

 

[Kinniken]

You can't just add that option... if you want Civ A to make peace with Civ B, you also need Civ B's agreement!
Either that, or you must implement a one-sided peace; and what nation would agree to declare peace with an hostile neibour, who hasnt agreed to anything and will thus continue attacking?

No, what is realy needed is multilateral diplomacy, allowing meeting between several leaders at the same time and the creation of exclusive multilateral alliances... like NATO, for exemple.
However, that would be a MAJOR addition. probably too big for a small, free release.
It would be great though... I've alway thought diplomacy was one of the thing that realy needed improvement in the Civ serie.

 

[Sir Yelof]

Originally posted by monkspider
...This would be a fairly simple thing to add in a future patch. Just add some new AI programming, a new line of text to the diplomacy screen, and voila!

Bwahahahaha! Oh, man, let me read that again. Haha! Hahahaha! Bwahahahaha! Oh, the humor, oh the pain.

Speaking as a software product manager, I think I can anticipate the priority of this enhancement request -- let's just say it's very low. Can you envision the testing involved? The work to make sure the two AI civilizations can agree to such a request, and under gameplay conditions so that it doesn't ruin the game balance? The use cases and rules you have to set up to determine at what skill levels and under what circumstances an AI player will accept that offer?

I'd bet dollars to donuts that you will only see a feature like this if it was already in the product and taken out towards the end due to scheduling constraints. Also, if they are working on a multiplayer, this is a diplo option that doesn't translate very well, so it's not on their development path.

Me, I'd rather see a developer team working on existing known defects that affect gameplay. Known issues that are obvious bugs. And in parallel, a multiplayer option or expansion pack. Why do the work for free? I'm betting, as people running a business, Firaxis figures most of us are good for another $30 to have multiplayer...

In Firaxis' defense, I am very impressed that they actually devoted resources to adding things like stack movement and sentry so far after the release. They are doing a smart thing by keeping a small core of engineers performing continuous maintenance on a shipping product instead of hanging it out to dry. Won't find that from too many game companies. (applause)

--Yelof

 

[Exile_Ian]

I'm all in favor of adding diplomacy options - the more complexities the better the gameplay IMHO. Although, I agree that these enhancements shouldn't be at the expense of the bug-fixing and gameplay issues already identified as problems.

But while we're on the same subject, what about a Cease-fire option? I used to use that a lot in Civ2 and its an obvious first step towards peace. Perhaps a ceasefire would last for say 10 turns by default - and the penalties for breaking a ceasefire would be less than for breaking an alliance or peace treaty. Maybe in a ceasefire relationship, you couldn't for instance enforce zone-control or enter into trade relationships with your 'enemy' - thus giving an incentive to move towards peace.

What do you think?

 

[karambunai]

Well, I have too agree that this is a very useful option, especially since civs can have MPP with each other. I don't think it's hard for Firaxis to introduce this option since it has been done with SMAC and it worked very well.

 

[Alc0p0pz]

Just add some new AI programming, a new line of text to the diplomacy screen, and voila!

And I had that quote ready to paste before I read Sir Yelof's reply. Hahaha. Aidez moi.

You see, regardless of the effort/size/impact of your enhancement, the way you wrote that suggests that if you don't already, you'd make a fine addition to someone's sales and marketing division.

That's the kinda sh!t they come out with all the time.
"Make it do this!"
"But surely it's just an algorithm!"

Hahaha.

No offense.

(Still grinning here )

 

[Dralix]

Originally posted by Exile_Ian
But while we're on the same subject, what about a Cease-fire option?

In essence, the first peace treaty you sign is a cease fire agreement. It is 20 turns of peace, then you can choose to make it permanent. It is, however, more restrictive than the Civ 2 cease fire.

 

[monkspider]

lol, I realize that I was oversimplifying things just a tad bit there, but i still think that adding this option is still relatively minor, in the grand scheme of things they could conceivably add. Especially considering they had this feature in SMAC/X and CIV 3 is essentially running on a heavily -modified smac engine.
I appologize if this simply my lack of programming experience speaking.

 

[Hamlet]

I presume there will be an expansion pack released at some point, which should expand the diplomacy options. I really can't see why the cease fire option was taken out.

I do, however, like the addition of requesting/giving away cities that is present within Civ 3 diplomacy, which was not present in Civ 2. Again, though, they took out the option of giving away units: why?

I can't understand why games companies seem to take with one hand and give with the other in sequels. Good options are often taken out, only to have different (but equally good) ones put in their place.

Sometimes I think companies just like to mess about with options for the sake of change, rather than have the accusation of 'keeping the original whilst throwing on a few new features.' thrown at them. Gets on my wick, though.

IF IT 'AINT BROKE, THEN LEAVE IT BE!