Changing Trade/Diplomacy

[MagisterCultuum]

The changes that Fireaxis made to diplomacy between Civ III and IV never made any sense to me. Why can't we mix instant and turn based goods? Have the designers ever heard of a loan? If you could undo this distinction, it would be appreciated.

Also, the idea that war must end in one side's surrender in nonsense. Wars are seldom a complete victory for one side. They are ended by negotiation-how can you negotiate when only one player can give and one recieve. If two players have taken eachothers favorite cities they canot even trade them for eachother, returning their boarders to pre-war status. This requirement should be removed.

Lastly, it would be cool if we could trade for different quantities of resouces, even those we already own. This could help to get free mana-based sphere promotions, and allow players to act a middlemen in transactions between other nations-even two nations which are at war. That would, of couse, not be good for diplomatic relations with you supplier. What if, as a particularly harsh condition for ending a war, we could demand all of a certain resource the surrendering party has and could get, regerdless how much. Thus we could prevent an old enemy from rebuilding an effective army (at least for a little while).

It would also be nice if we could determine for how many turns each turn based trade should last, but that might be asking too much.

 

[kenken244]

i agree with that

 

[Yakk]

The problem with loans is it was used heavily to screw the AI.

Borrow money from the AI just before going to war (cancelling the per-turn deal), or to discourage the AI from going to war with you.

The "war must only consist of concessions on one side" is a bit annoying, but I suspect it existed in order to simplify the logic involved.

 

[coko]

Thing is that would be one hell of a game changing thing, so in reality would have to be a major balance ****er.

Plus coding it can't be nice

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I don't envy whoever endeavors to fix Fireaxis's folly, but would be grateful. It might be necessary to make the AI reject all mixed offers until someone can program them to spot human duplicity, but it would be nice for multiplayer. This change would make a good mod by itself, and be great incorporated into FfH.

 

[[NWO]_Valis]

The problem with loans is it was used heavily to screw the AI.

Borrow money from the AI just before going to war (cancelling the per-turn deal), or to discourage the AI from going to war with you.

But this is how it works in the real world. Like Ankh-Morkpork, every one was in debt to it or was getting supply from it so war was not worth it from economical point of view. It would be balanced in that when some one did such a thing then he would get negative diplomacy bonuses for every one and he would never get a loan ever. It could also be implemented into an AI that it could do such a thing for a human.
Think of the possibilities You could loan someone money to ensure he will not dogpile you the next time war break lose [you would have to get an option that when some one asks you for joining war you could give back the loan immediately if you have the resources and then there would be no penalty], also paying someone money to join the war would be more common.

It might be necessary to make the AI reject all mixed offers until someone can program them to spot human duplicity, but it would be nice for multiplayer. This change would make a good mod by itself, and be great incorporated into FfH.

I am afraid so that AI wont support it but a feature just for multiplayer would be great. You can even give gold to your pernamment ally now!

 

[Yakk]

Loans between the Greeks city states and the Persian empire where not part of the economics of the war.

International many-many-year loans between heads of state where not part of most of the history of the world. Currently, such loans mainly occur between nations that include at least one democracy (and democracies find going to war on the whim of the ruler harder than non-democracies), or other security guarantees to avoid the problem.

I suppose you could model it as follows:
If you owe someone gold/turn for a loan, going to war stops the flow of gold, but costs you twice the cost in internal economic damages. The same is applied to resources: if you are lending someone iron for 20 turns in exchange for a lump sum, if the deal is broken you lose access to two iron resources for the remainder of the duration.

If someone goes to war with you when you owe them gold/turn, you lose that gold/turn from economic damages, but they don't recieve it. The same works for resources: you lose that resource for the duration of the original deal.

If you go to war with someone who owes you gold/turn, you stop getting the gold.

If someone goes to war with you who owes you gold/turn, you stop getting the gold.

...

Finally, such deals should only be allowed after the discovery of Economics.

 

[Yoshi2942]

International many-many-year loans between heads of state where not part of most of the history of the world. Currently, such loans mainly occur between nations that include at least one democracy (and democracies find going to war on the whim of the ruler harder than non-democracies), or other security guarantees to avoid the problem.

Not to get too political. But please name one non-democracy in modern times which has gone to war on a "whim". And without bringing the current Iraq war situation into the discussion - I believe it is easy to say that the US went to war in Vietnam on what I would describe as a whim. As for loans mainly including atleast one democracy being a true statement - this is because the US is a "democracy", and also happens to be the worlds biggest borrower. But at the same time, much of the money is borrowed from China and Saudi Arabia - which means that it would be equally true to state that a great portion of modern international money lending involves atleast one non-democracy, but in reality - Most international money lending is Not long term loans between heads of states. Infact, I'd be shocked to hear of one example of a head of a democratic state which loaned money to the head of another state. I don't think that the example exists.

As for the OP: I agree. I don't even buy the argument that it is a good idea to remove them because the human could use the mechanics to screw the AI. Come on, the AI is already easy enough to screw over that adding one more mechanic doesn't make any real difference - but by removing it, Firaxis removed a mechanic which allowed for more flexibility in trade negotiations -- which are currently lacking.

 

[Nikis-Knight]

Not to get too political. But please name one non-democracy in modern times which has gone to war on a "whim"

Does "modern times" stretch all the way back to the 1990s?

 

[Yoshi2942]

If you are going to refer to Saddam in Kuwait --- That is certainly not a case of a non-democratic leader deciding to go to war on a "whim". Check the history. Kuwait had been diagonally drilling for oil for years (stealing oil from Iraq). Saddam went to the international community and basically said "if you don't do something, I will." The United States' response at the time? No response. Saddam took the US' silence on the issue as meaning that the US aggreed with the fact that Saddam had the right to invade to prevent the Kuwaitis from stealing the Iraqi oil. But, of course, it didn't play out that way.

EDIT -- My mistake on the US response.. Actually the response was "We will not wage Economic war against you"... And yes the situation was much more complex than drilling for oil - but my point is that that situation was not on a whim, it was a result of years of issues, along with international discussions, prior to the actual invasion.

 

[Nikis-Knight]

Okay, I'll take your word on that. There's many more examples of atuocratic countries declaring war on other countries, or allowing a terrorist non-state entitiy to launch attacks from their borders, or of attacking a portion of their own population over the last 50 years, but I'd rather not get invovled in a debate over what constitutes a whim.
Besides, I agree with your conclusion--that merely having elections will not necessarily make a country more prone to peace. (Though we'd probably cite different examples )

 

[Yoshi2942]

Don't take my word for it, the internet is right in front of you - I'm not saying that everything you read on the internet (by me or anyone else) is completely correct, but the opportunity to double or triple check things can provide for atleast some level of certainty.

But, in the end, my point was just as you said -- elections != peaceful. And while each of the US' military involvements may have some justification over the past 50 years, there is no denying the fact that no one has been in any where near as many conflicts as the US has during that period.

 

[Ironfoot]

Don't take my word for it, the internet is right in front of you - I'm not saying that everything you read on the internet (by me or anyone else) is completely correct, but the opportunity to double or triple check things can provide for atleast some level of certainty.

But, in the end, my point was just as you said -- elections != peaceful. And while each of the US' military involvements may have some justification over the past 50 years, there is no denying the fact that no one has been in any where near as many conflicts as the US has during that period.

I think the Israeli's would argue with that statement. And plenty of countries have been in long term conflicts during that period such as North/South Korea, India and Pakistan, various parts of Indochina and Large parts of Africa. I'm not saying the US has not been involved in its fair share of conflict but is hardly in the top 10 I would suspect in the last 50 yrs (Korea, Vietnam, Cold, Grenada, Beirut, Iraq 1 and Iraq 2, Afghanistan so 8 in 50 yrs some quite short),

 

[sixs_monkey]

A great deal depends on how you define 'involvement'. Most if not all of the regimes to the south have felt the hand of US involvement, if you ask their citizens. Nixon personally decided that the democractically elected leadership of Chile could not be allowed to hold power, and saw to it.

I suspect there were plenty of folks who resented Athenian 'involvment' as well.
No form of government mandates empathetic behavior on an inter-national level, since humans are still having trouble identifying and properly sublimating our brutish bully drives.

 

[Yoshi2942]

I think the Israeli's would argue with that statement. And plenty of countries have been in long term conflicts during that period such as North/South Korea, India and Pakistan, various parts of Indochina and Large parts of Africa. I'm not saying the US has not been involved in its fair share of conflict but is hardly in the top 10 I would suspect in the last 50 yrs (Korea, Vietnam, Cold, Grenada, Beirut, Iraq 1 and Iraq 2, Afghanistan so 8 in 50 yrs some quite short),

Personally, I wouldn't care what the Israelis would argue with or not. But now that you mention the Israelis -- That is one country which could give the US a run for its money on number of engagements.

As for Pakistan and India? Hotspot to be sure, but number of conflicts? With each other is about it.

North/South Vietnam? That seems to me a silly comparison with the types of engagements which the US has been involved in. So what if on paper they have been at war for a million (or 50) years, if that was the kind of war which we had to fear, then the world would be a much safer place.

I agree that there are many parts of Africa which have had strife flare up, but in almost every case it is internal strife related to control of natural resources -- and usually the only spillover is due to refugee and oportunistic warlords. Ever seen the movie Lord of War? Watch it sometime - sure it is a Hollywood special, but it actually gives a really good insight into (EDIT) America's involvment in (/EDIT) the wars in Africa.

In each of the above cases, the US has played a part. Each of them. So to use any/all of them as arguments as to countries which have been involved in conflicts is merely to add weight to the number of conflicts which the US has been involved in.

The US isn't merely in the top 10 of countries which have had thier hand in conflicts. It isn't merely number 1. For the last 50 years, the US has had its hand in just about every conflict around the world. This might sound outrageous, but it is more accurate than not. Do not believe that I say this as someone who is bashing the US. Or even someone who is bashing the US' policies. Do not get all worked up at what I am saying. Go back to one of the first things that I've said --> in each of the individual conflicts, the reasons for the US getting involved may have been good, correct, just, whatever. But the culmulative effect is that the US does get involved in a lot of fights.

Think of it this way: Laws. Break a law = go to jail. Decide on a new crime, create a new law, put another person in jail. Create enough laws, throw everyone in jail. In each of the cases - the purpose of the law may be very beneficial to the society, but if the culmulative effect is that everyone in society ends up in jail, then what good are the laws?

EDIT2:
As to your list of engagments, you should probably add: Bay of Pigs, Iraq/Iran war which we tried to help Iraq defeat Iran, the interference during the 60's in Iran to install a governement friendly to the US, which was then overthrown in 79, and the whole hostage situation which led to the US arming the rebels in Columbia -- the whole Iran/Contra affair thing? The list goes on and on of engagments which the US has been involved in -- usually through the supply small numbers of troops and large numbers of weapons.

 

[Yakk]

Not to get too political. But please name one non-democracy in modern times which has gone to war on a "whim".

Non-democracy in modern times which has gone to war on a "whim"?

Russia vs Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Iran/Iraq, the various wars against Isreal, the various wars in central africa, Iraq invading Kuwait, etc.

Now, most modern states have democratic pretentions, and states that lack military power find it hard to project military force.

And without bringing the current Iraq war situation into the discussion - I believe it is easy to say that the US went to war in Vietnam on what I would describe as a whim.

Not very whim-like: from the USA perspective, it was defending a nation against a communist revolution. The Vietnam war was a slow steady buildup over decades.

As for loans mainly including atleast one democracy being a true statement - this is because the US is a "democracy", and also happens to be the worlds biggest borrower.

Yes, and democracies tend to have much better credit. You can borrow from non-democratic states, but you tend to demand ridiculously high interest rates to deal with the massive risk of default.

But at the same time, much of the money is borrowed from China and Saudi Arabia - which means that it would be equally true to state that a great portion of modern international money lending involves atleast one non-democracy

No, most of the international debt that the USA owes is not to Saudi Arabia or China.

but in reality - Most international money lending is Not long term loans between heads of states. Infact, I'd be shocked to hear of one example of a head of a democratic state which loaned money to the head of another state. I don't think that the example exists.

Then between central banks. A nations central bank reflects the policy of the state.

 

[Yoshi2942]

Your examples of wars which involved non-democracies do nothing to show "whims". I do not discount the fact that non-democracies are involved in wars, and start them, but that does not mean that they are on a "whim".

But let's look closer at your examples:

Russia vs Afghanistan -- yes, Russia invaded Afghanistan, and unfortunately my knowledge on this one is less than it should be -- but wasn't the US involved in arming the Afghan freedom fighters? Not saying that it was a wrong thing to do, but I believe that this war was one of the many small "proxy" wars between the US and Russia.

Ethiopia -- The war in Ethiopia - EDIT -- misremembered, but the borderwar resulting from longstanding issues could not be described as "whimsical" - and besides, Ethiopia is a Democracy. Another example of a Democracy in a conflict.

Iran/Iraq -- Another proxy war between USSR and USA. In fact, truth be told - the US had as much to do with that war as any other country, in 79 when the coup in Iran took place and the "democratically" elected president (who was friendly with the US) was overthrown by a student movement, the US feared that the populist movement would align its self with the USSR and that the oil fields would be used to finance the larger Cold War. Then when border tensions rose (still some debate on who actually started the war, Iran or Iraq) and war broke out, the US didn't want to get directly involved out of fear that the USSR would also get directly involved - so instead we provided lots and lots of weapons to the Iraqis (and the Iranians also, I believe).

The various wars against Isreal -- Which is definately a point of view. A skewed and very incorrect one at that. Isreal has occupied many lands which it shouldn't for decades, in complete disregard to hundreds of UN resolutions stating that Isreal must relinquish control of the settlement lands. The only reason why Isreal (isn't over-run) is able to defy the International community on this one is because of the military support of the USA.

The various wars in central africa -- Already mentioned, almost none of which have anything to do with country vs country conflict but are rather civil war in nature. Don't get me wrong, civil wars are nasty things - but when we are talking about country to country policies and trade negotiations, civil wars don't exactly fit the criteria. (see opening post)


Iraq invading Kuwait -- Already described in detail. Once again the US could be described as being complicitly responsible for this war. Don't get me wrong, Saddam shouldn't have invaded and there were other ways to handle the situation, but look into the matter - nothing "whimish" about that war.

As for the debt: I did not say most - I said much. I know that Japan is the US' largest source of funds, but China isn't a small player. Let us see how the US economy could handle deciding that it no longer needed the funding from China. As for non-democratically governments having credit problems. It isn't quite that simple: I could pull out all of my notes from school (Education background == Economics), but I won't. Instead I'll just mention that in school we looked at a lot of the causes of the poor credit of various countries - and while political instability was certainly one; having an other-than-democratic-government is not directly a cause. Besides, who would call China a bad investment right now?

 

[Yoshi2942]

Anyways, I appologize for getting this thread off-topic. It merely bothered me to equate democracy with peace when the observable world easily shows that if anything, the correlation would be negative. I'll quit trying to give examples of the US' involvement in global wars, and at the same time show how when other nations' go to war it is usually an internal conflict over the control of its resources. So what, the US is a police state which wants to police the actions of the world. I never said this is a bad thing.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Though that might be a very interesting discussion in itself. I'd suggest that maybe this discussion be moved to the CFC off-topic forum, maybe someone could start a thead there and post a link to it here.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I just thought of same nice changes while on the raging barbarians thread. THey are probably even less likely to be adopted than my earlier ideas, but here they are (I copied and pasted from there):

I would like it if there were a diplomatic stance between war and peace. Everyone would start with this towards everyone, including barbs. Civs in this state could attach each other's units but could not capture cities. Automated units would not attack the neutral units. Attacking would not start a war, but it would upset the units owner. He would declare war with you pretty quickly if you kept this up. You could not go back to the pre-war state once you have been at war with a civ, you would need a peace treaty. Declaring war after having a peace treaty would cause other civs to dislike you, but war without peace would only effect your relations to that one civ.

I would also like it if there was a state between open and closed borders. You could move in rival territory without having an open border agreement, but this could greatly anger the owning civ. They would have every right to kill the trespassers, and could unilaterally decide to close their borders to your units. Then, your would need to either get open borders or declare war.

I think that this system is more diplomatically realistic, but will probably never be adopted. In the unlikely circumstance that it is, then the barbarians could still attack everyone but could focus on those with whom they are at war. They would chose who declare war on based on more reasonable factors, like who would be easiest to defeat. Like everyone else, they would prefer one front wars, but would be unable to make peace treaties with other civs (except those with the barbarian trait. It might be best to make this trait simply be the ability to contact and negotiate with the barbarian nation. It could still have the research penalty, and would give a diplomatic boost between the civ and the barbarian nation that would go away at the point where the barbs usually would declare war)