Changing Trade/Diplomacy

[Blakmane]

On a side note, Money lending so exert diplomatic pressure does happen in the real world, but it tends to involve the lendor either A) still having full control over the distribution of the cash, or B) investing within business. Both of these types of loans can be withdrawn at any time without significant loss to the lendor, and also allow for political manipulation by directing the flow of money.

However, this is much too complicated for a simple game like Civ. Better to just let it lie


I like the idea of being able to have negotiations with a peace-treaty however. That really pisses me off (when, for instance, I want my city back but the AI is *just* not willing. I could probably offer him 100 gold and he'd accept but nooooo)

*edit*

and this whole 'who goes to war on a whim' thing seems a little inane. Wars have reasons folks, even if they aren't readily apparent to the public. The only difference between democratic and non-democratic governments is non-democratic governments don't need to war about war weariness

Mass generalisation above by the way, please don't explode with a 1000 word essay or something

 

[khanjackal]

If we equated the read world with Civ, we'd have to "fudge" real world events to make them work.

We would have been at war with Iraq (actually a large state extending across most of the middle east) since 1991, but just not active war, no invasion. America spent 10 years building up enough units to go in an take over Bagdad without any losses, and they did. Took it over in one turn.

However, this is a mod with the great Partisan function from Civ 2, and ever since 2003, we've had the city in revolt, damaging our units, and the surrounding tiles filling up with partisan units. We kill them easily enough, but our "no loss" victory is turning into a unit pit.

Back in time, the whole cold war was just a cleverly coded piece of mod that allowed us and the USSR to enter into conflict without actually fighting. We could fight their proxies (vassals) and they ours. However, the two countries in proper were never in conflict.

Civ is a game of abstractions. It can't mirror the real world perfectly. But we can try and come close.

I do think that historically, modern Democracies have not fought things like the 30 years war, a total war, or the War of the Flowers. We fight relatively short, brutal wars, but ones in which we aren't destroying improvements, or razing cities. We're out their taking cities from Civs that run slavery, and feudalism, to give to our vassals that are running Emancipation, and Free Speech.

We just can't seem to KEEP our vassals from switching back over to civics we find abhorrent.

The system as it runs works well, not perfectly, for early history and Fantasy mods, like FFH. I think a little improvement is in order, but it would be hard to teach the AI to use. See. Back on topic.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

One more diplomatic change that I would like but would never expect anyone to try to implement, copied from an entry I just made on the another thread in response to questions on why the animal cages and the great menagerie should produce more culture than academies:

How can anyone really define "culture" and determine who's culture is stronger? The borders are governed my cultural influence. People aren't influenced as strongly by what they would rather ignore. The borders are based on the idea that a more influential culture makes people more likely to adopt elements of said culture, and thus to see themselves as a part of it.

This makes sense in part, but I've always wanted the additional ability to define borders diplomatically. This makes more sense historically. The frontiers of most expanding nations, like the US or Russia, were home to many people who didn't identify with the rest of society, but the rest of the world considered this land to be their territory. I would like it if for purposes of the land being productive borders remained as they are, but if for diplomatic reasons it were made more realistic. You could still only work tile within the old cultural borders, but could keep foreigners off of your entire continent if border setting treaties with these foreigner's nations (and maybe if a majority of the world recognizes your borders than everyone else must also). These would be major changes, and I in no way expect anyone to try to implement this.

 

[Gutus]

I think all this cultural borders thing was introduced to take a lot of micro off our back. I mean do we really want to discuss about each tile of land with the AI? It could have been a real pain in the a**. I think the cultural influence works its role pretty well. I mean its like having all those pacts in the background. Where your culture goes, you have your interests. As you invest more and more in your interests in this certain area, it becomes more and more yours. You can still trade or conquer cities, you always have a choice on how to get the are of interest. On the other hand, if you do not invest enough resources into one of your own areas, you can loose it to your enemies - peacefully or in a war. I do not see this idea of defining borders w/o introducing a lot of micro.

What I would like to see is an enhancement to the diplomacy interface to be able to loan money, like it was discussed before. I also think new weights should be introduced to resources, as currently AI will trade you any of the 'usual' resources w/o a problem, while you will have to try very hard to get any type of mana, even though AI does not know how to use them. I think gunpowder/mithril/iron should not be so easily tradeable.

 

[Dora190]

Can you clarify whim?

I can't think of non-democracy (Germany into Poland perhaps) But I can think of a democracy (USA-Spain) that went to war on a whim.

Vietnam was a bad example, the US was gradually sucked in. It never intended to get that embroiled (classic mission creep on a grand scale)

 

[onedreamer]

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.

Well, honestly it's happened to me many times that the AI would do that to me
In Civ4 instead, they drag me to war with a third party, and then declare peace the turn after... wicked.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Well, honestly it's happened to me many times that the AI would do that to me
In Civ4 instead, they drag me to war with a third party, and then declare peace the turn after... wicked.

Yup, I've had them do that quite a bit as well. Vanilla issue.

 

[onedreamer]

Hehe, yeah. And to think -if I remember well- that in Civ3 such kind of behaviour would make the AI -rightfully- mad at you.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Hehe, yeah. And to think -if I remember well- that in Civ3 such kind of behaviour would make the AI -rightfully- mad at you.

I suppose I can sort of see the logic in it.

"Hey, we've got to take a break, mind keeping some pressure on the Sheaim for us?"

I only wish that they'd clue you in to their intentions when they did that.