Civ3 Conquests: Diplomacy Wish List/Discussions

[Quokka]

Food convoys to transfer food between cities to get rid of the annoying +1/-1 food grow then starve loop.

Supply convoys to transfer shields between cities so large established cities can help small developing ones.Have them come later, but their disband ratio is 1/2 instead of 1/4.
One come with Engineering and cost 40 shields, disband for 20, and another with Industrialization and costs 80 shields, disband for 40.

 

[RegentMan]

Originally posted by Quokka
Supply convoys to transfer shields between cities so large established cities can help small developing ones.

How would wonders be effected by this? It's a nice idea, but people would abuse this like they did with caravans in Civ II.

 

[Carver]

Originally posted by Hellfire
Also, I really wish people would stop making references like this:

First, in order to address this problem, you have to understand the tech design of the game. Its a computer. How do you make a computer not know where something is in the game? If it forgets where all the units are, it forgets where your units are and that will end the game quick!

No, this would not be a problem at all. The programmers deliberately gave the AI opponents omnivision (TM), allowing them to see where your units are and see which cities are undefended or lightly defended. This was done to give the AI a leg up against the (hopefully) more intelligent human player.

I haven't decided if I like the feature or not, but it could easily be programmed out (or made an option at game startup). It helps to keep the human on his/her toes but is easily exploitable: ie drawing AI troops into prime kill zones.

 

[Raidne]

Originally posted by shu2
i also wanna be able to help a civ at war against another civ, ie minerals resources... and get appreciated for it...

Yep, I also wish to be able to broker economic assistance and sanctions when parties are at war. I should also be allowed to share the exploits of war and be appreciated.

 

[Pembroke]

I want the per turn deals improved, specifically the "blame" logic of it. As this thread was about diplomacy I think that this could be solved with a relatively simple addition (remember, Conquests won't be Civ4 so all changes have to be minor to be even considered by Firaxis).

My idea: Whenever a per turn deal gets broken for whatever reason the diplomacy screen opens (or analoguous diplomacy stuff is handled behind the screens if it's between two computer players) and you will see something like the following:

A) "Your shipments of incense have stopped. Are you trying to cheat us? We demand 30 gold for compensation."

or

B) "We are unable to pay you the tribute of 10 gpt. Have mercy on us and let us continue our peace."

depending on who is unable to meet the request. The computer calculates the worth of the deal left "unpaid" if you owe him. If it's the otherway round then it's up to you to think how much you value peace over war. Then you negotiate a new settlement or deal that you can have with the current trade routes or gold incomes and if there's agreement no-one gets a rep hit. If agreement is not made then the rep hit applies.

Although it's kinda logical that if you have demanded gpt for a peace contract and the losing civ is unable to pay the tribute it declares war (i.e. gpt deal AND peace contract get "broken") it's still pretty stupid...

 

[inudog]

Originally posted by RegentMan

Originally posted by Quokka

Supply convoys to transfer shields between cities so large established cities can help small developing ones.

How would wonders be effected by this? It's a nice idea, but people would abuse this like they did with caravans in Civ II.

Easy. Shield transfers can't be used for wonders just like forest chops and unit disbandings. I think it is an alright idea, but it could change the game significantly. Think if you were going for 100k cultural victory. Just use these 'caravans' from your productive cities that already have all their cultural buildings, straight to your newly conquered cities to rush the cultural improvements. Actually, might give cultural victory on Deity a fighting chance (based on personal lack of ability to stay close culturally even at Emperor).

 

[Turner]

I happen to disagree with the non-wonder usage for the shield transfers. Back in the 1960's, when Kennedy urged the country to reach for the moon, he didn't urge just one city, it was an entire effort of the country. Granted, not every person worked on it, but it was more than one city, or business.

Now, I wouldn't mind seeing a limit of the number of shields, based upon the number of cities in the empire. Kinda like how many armies can be supported. . . .

 

[Coorae]

extra food should carry over when the city grows. and carry over extra shields when something is finished.
It is ABSURD how musch micromanagement you find yourself doing because things dont carry over. (eg, a city needs 1 more food to grow, but its getting 8 extra food per turn, so just for one turn you should move the people on the flood plains to the mined hills, because then it would still grow in one turn and get more production.)
same happens whenever I see a city that says "2 turns left" to build something, I move people to the production tiles to try and finish in one turn, getting the exact amount of shields needed.

 

[RegentMan]

If you have a deal going on with a civ (a lux or gpt) and that civ gets killed off, you get the rep hit, even if you didn't take the final city. This is just absurd. They need to make it so that no one gets a rep hit. Same thing applies when an AI declares war on you, and your trade route to the other civs depends on his roads, a deal is broken and the game sees you as the deal-breaker. It's just not cricket.

 

[Pembroke]

Well, say you are shipping products to your customers and the shipments travel via a country where a war suddenly breaks out and your containers get stuck in its harbors. The response from your customers will be to complain to _you_, not to the government of the warring country. And rightly so, because the responsibility for delivering is yours.

But what's missing in civ is that in real world you don't get a reputation hit from force majeure issues. You are merely liable for damages and by paying compensation to them, your customers will still stay your customers in the future as they know that you indeed are dealing honorably with them even though you couldn't deliver.

Add the possibility of paying compensation for broken deals, and most of the current problems with trading in civ would be solved. There wouldn't even be a need to put any fancy logic of "whom to blame" because if you intentionally screw your trade partner then it wouldn't make much sense to pay him damages, either. This would automatically put the rep hits where they really belong: those who intentionally break deals and can't be trusted.

And those who weren't to blame but who can't afford to pay enough to compensate the customer? Well, if a business can't even return your money if it fails to meet its end of the bargain for whatever reason then such business rightfully deserves to get a rep hit...

 

[Fr8monkey]

Originally posted by Quokka
Food convoys to transfer food between cities to get rid of the annoying +1/-1 food grow then starve loop.

Supply convoys to transfer shields between cities so large established cities can help small developing ones.Have them come later, but their disband ratio is 1/2 instead of 1/4.
One come with Engineering and cost 40 shields, disband for 20, and another with Industrialization and costs 80 shields, disband for 40.

These are on my list (especially #1). The other thing I want is in high production cities, the ability to ration shields on small cost items. Example:
Let say I have an industrial city cranking out 90 shilds per turn. I need to build something for 120 shields.
Time to build = 2 turns
Shields wasted = 80
Fix #1 - Take the 2 turns to build and take the 60 wasted shields and invest them into gold like the city was building "Wealth" OR
Fix #2 - Take 1 turn to build and charge me the extra 30 shields as if I were rushing the project.
Any comments?

 

[dguichar]

Originally posted by civrules
Also, fix the ability of the AI *not* to know where all the resources are and units of the human player are.
Everything that the human player knows the AI should know. Everything that the human player dose not know, the AI should not know. This will balance out the game a bit.

But why not add it into the game options just like the ability to turn on and off the cultural flips.

Keep civilized

David

 

[dguichar]

Originally posted by RegentMan

How would wonders be effected by this? It's a nice idea, but people would abuse this like they did with caravans in Civ II.

No caravans. Instead let's have an abstract system of clicking on a new icon on the commerce screen where you get another screen (much like to the espionage's one) where you are able to set the food trades between cities connected to the trade network.
I guess this could be expanded to shields, taking care of negating the transfer into wonder building cities.

Keep civilized

David

 

[dguichar]

Originally posted by dguichar


No caravans. Instead let's have an abstract system of clicking on a new icon on the commerce screen where you get another screen (much like to the espionage's one) where you are able to set the food trades between cities connected to the trade network.
I guess this could be expanded to shields, taking care of negating the transfer into wonder building cities.

Keep civilized

David

I wanted to delete this doble posting, but i couldn't... Sorry

Keep civilized

David

 

[snsfro]

I think stealth interception values should be changed.
For example: A B1-B bomber was made to reduce radar detection by 99%, a B-2 stealth bomber reduces it by 99.99% yet in civ3, I am forced to give the B-2 stealth characteristics and the B1-B normal characteristics. This means that the B1-B would get intercepted 50% of the time and the B-2 only 5%. That's cheap!
There should be a counter from 1 to 100% interception rates on the editor. Also, it's stupid that a Tactical Nuke does the same damage as an ICBM.

 

[Red Wegener]

Doh! I was replying to another thread and my message was posted to this one isntead.

 

[marceagleye]

I'm surprised no one has brought this up. OK here goes. Any deal you make with the AI shouldn't automatically be 20 turns. You should have the option to make a 10 turn deal and an option for a 30 turn deal. Like in a normal negotiation if you're paying the lump sum gold but can't afford any per-turn gold for an AI luxury, if your advisor says "We're getting close to a deal here." while at the same time you're tapped out with nothing more to give, you can renegotiate the deal for 10 turns instead of 20 and still have some gold left over. If you get the AI to trade you straight up one luxury for another, you want to go for the 30 turn deal. Or if you're trading a strategic resource for a luxury, same thing. What if you have 0 gold in the treasury but are several techs ahead and you offer a tech for the luxury and your advisor says you're close to a deal. But all you have to offer is another tech- again push for the 30 turn deal. Or what if ROP with your neighbor will help tremendously in your war with his neighbor, but you'll only need it for a handful of turns to accomplish your objective ( capturing one particular city). You don't particularly trust your neighbor and don't need the ROP all that extra time, so you negotiate a 10 turn deal. You can do the same with MA's, MPP's, Embargoes.... the possibilities are tremendous. If you really want improved diplomacy these are the options you want.

 

[Sid Amazing]

If I tell the AI to get of my land I want them to leave, not walk across it, not to get some pointless piece of land at the other end of my emprire. If I walk across their land within two turns they kick me off. Look fair fairs....

Sid

 

[LordKestrel]

I would love to see something like SMAC's Pact of Brotherhood. It let's you share bases, defend each other, have units from different civs on the same square, things like that. Also, being able to tell the other member of the pact to research one side of the tree, while you work on the other would be nice.

Perhaps to avoid abusing them, they would last a minimum of 50 turns, and with no way to cancel them until that time is up, and after it expires, perhaps another 10 turns before war can be declared.

 

[7of9lover]

More forms of government.