cease fire? Let's call it even.

[korusus]

Why is there no cease-fire option like in Civ 2? It's either one civ completely annhilates another or they agree to total peace. Sometimes you just want to pull your troops back and regroup and not have to worry about breaking a treaty. This should definitely be an option. As well as surrender. Often times wars end with one country surrendering to another one or an alliance of countries, but lose no land or power. There should be a way to force a civilization to surrender (not sign a peace treaty) and have the entire war blamed on the loser. I don't know. It just seems more authentic to have a cease-fire/surrender option.

(I know that a peace treaty is just as good as surrender and there really is no difference, especially if the offending civ is financially reprimanded, but something about forcing queen elizibeth or otto von bismark to their knees to beg for surrender makes a person feel good inside)

 

[Zouave]

Jeez. Good job. I hadn't thought of that with so many other problems with Civ III!

Where is the cease fire option???

Patch it in, Firaxis.

 

[rangers85]

But, it's a peace treaty basically like the cease-fire. After the 20 turns, you have the chance to not renew the peace treaty or renew it into a lasting one. After a war, the peace treaty only lasts 20 turns, at which time you can do whatever you want.

 

[Sparrowhawk]

I would like an option like in SMAC, where a Civ that you were stomping on would surrender and become your underling ally.

 

[Greadius]

I agree, there is something lacking in the war/not war department. Often it has to do with entangling treaties and the AI being reluctant to break them, but even with a cease fire you would be.
I'd prefer if you could choose how long the Alliances should last, or better yet, if you could set a specific alliance goal (drive back the invader and recapture land vs. total anhilation of every enemy city).

 

[korusus]

I would like an option like in SMAC, where a Civ that you were stomping on would surrender and become your underling ally.

I totally agree with this. Instead of a civ w/ 2 cities left staying furious with you for the rest of eternity, it seems like they would rather want to be nice to you so that you (being much more powerful) could PREVENT their total annhiliation from another civ. Forever your dummy government scrambling to serve your every whim.

 

[Ram Michaeli]

The surrender option might be great, check it out - if you surrender, you will be returned all of the territory (cities, not colonies) you've lost, but you'll have to pay the winning civilizaition a 'turnly' (yearly? how will I call it?) tribute. How about this?

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

great idea! You could have options like a one sided right of passage of 20 turns (so you can check that the other guy don`t fight you no more, hehe) or a peace dividend paid out to you as reparations! I`d also like to see that since you could keep a small civ you still want around for UN votes or as your "dealer" when you go to war from simply coming back by conquest on another continent!

 

[Hamlet]

A cease-fire option is a must.

 

[sealman]

I would like the ability to multi-civ peace treaties.

There is nothing I hate worse than going to war with a civ, getting an ally to assist through some agreement and then having to wait out the 20 turns until it expires before I can make peace even if I accomplish my goals quickly.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

More conventional alliances would be good aswell...E.G

I am Japan

At war with China

I buy Russia in to attack China

China brings the Indians in to attack me

India pays for Russia to attack me!!!

Aren't we on the same side? Apparently not!

Furthermore some better diplomacy screens as in civ2 where you could have a quick to bring up screen showing what tech your enemy has and how rich he is and what his capital city is.
True you can see it on the map and via diplomacy but for quick reference I would certainly value it.


Plus the cease-fire option

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Happy Birthday, kittenOFchaos!

You`re right about the quick list, I sometimes am just too lazy to check the trading screen and talk to everx civ just to see if they have a new tech or lux......

You`re MPP/Allience thing is another proof that the current system sucks!

 

[Ordep]

One of the things that bugs me about Civ3 is that there were many cool things in SMAC and Civ2 that were left out. Given that the games were developed by many of the same people, you'd think thay they would include the best features of the earlier games in the later game. The limited options in diplomacy is an example of this. With SMAC, when you first met you had no official diplomatic stance. There were options of peace, alliances and cease-fires. Also, if you completely overpowered a civ they would give up and become your toady for the rest of the game. Why were all these options left out of Civ3?

Now that I think of it, the complete surrender option was probably not included because of the potential for diplomatic victory. The developers probably felt that it would be too easy to beat up on the four (in an 8 player game) weakest Civs, making them surrender to you, and using their votes to win the game without confronting the more powerful opponents.

 

[Angmar]

There needs to be much more than just "war / peace" there needs to be atleast one step in between the two.

I remember back to a game where I had an ally that was being very good to me we had tons of trades and because of this we were doing very well. I managed to avoid a war with the Zulu with a tech / cash trade, so instead they go at my buddy. To get there they have to come through my territory. I ask them a couple time to get out or declare war .. they declared war. I wasnt ready to go war and pretty much just held my ground. After many turns of the Zulus smearing themselves on my defenses we sign a peace treaty.

Now of course they are still at war with my buddy and continue to move troops into my territory. Now if this was real I would be able to open fire on their troops. I feel that you should be able to attack troops in your territory without "declaring war"

I think I have noticed that you can defend yourself with out triggering a MPP. I think that defending my borders is entirely different than declaring war. Now if I then take my troops across into Zululand and attack his units there that is War.

Currently right now in the real world Pakistan and Indian artillery units are probably shelling each other. There is no declaration of war. Disputed borders would rule

Lets hope that Civ 4 is not 4 years away ...

Cheers,

 

[Jimcat]

Originally posted by Ordep
Now that I think of it, the complete surrender option was probably not included because of the potential for diplomatic victory. The developers probably felt that it would be too easy to beat up on the four (in an 8 player game) weakest Civs, making them surrender to you, and using their votes to win the game without confronting the more powerful opponents.

If that were true, why did they include it in SMAC? You can use exactly that strategy to win a diplomatic victory in SMAC. Of course, voting in the SMAC planetry council was by population, not one vote per faction. The UN voting system is too simplistic to be any good in Civ3.

 

[D. Boon's Ghost]

Being able to attack troops that dance around your territory without fear of breaking any 'official' treaties is a great idea.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Angmar`s right! We shloud be able to kick other who don`t want to go out of our land. But there`s another problem to it that was addressed in another thread I can`t find right now: when someone takes a ciy from you (war) and you try to take it back (only fair), it is considered war, too - and his MPPs kick in! STUPID! If Turkey took a Syrian town as the aggressor and Syria tried to take it back - would NATO come to the help of Turkey???????

 

[korusus]

MPP's are pure satanic evil...

 

[Ordep]

Originally posted by Jimcat


If that were true, why did they include it in SMAC? You can use exactly that strategy to win a diplomatic victory in SMAC. Of course, voting in the SMAC planetry council was by population, not one vote per faction. The UN voting system is too simplistic to be any good in Civ3.

That's exactly the problem. . . the UN is one vote for one favtion, so if you control a few 1 city "empires" you could win the game. They can't just switch it to population because then an empire that had expanded a ton and had a huge population would have a huge advantage when it came to the vote, and I think that's against the spirit of a diplomatic victory. Honestly, I hate the whole diplomatic victory thing, but maybe that's just me. I mean, if you were playing against other people (if they ever made multiplayer) NO ONE would ever achieve a diplomatic victory.

 

[korusus]

I mean, if you were playing against other people (if they ever made multiplayer) NO ONE would ever achieve a diplomatic victory.

Even if there were only two nominees (UN holder and Histograph leader)??