Civ3 Conquests: Diplomacy Wish List/Discussions

[Esckey]

More governments. Give the human players a fairer chance against AI(the whole AI sees everything that I can't, I get booted off their land in 2 turns while they can waltz across my mine no matter what, etc) 3rd party intervention, prevent the AI from flying off the handle when ever you make a slight request or politly tell them no when they ask for something completly lame, like offering wine for 20 turns inexchange he wants money, tech AND 1 or 2 resouces.


Oh and prevent the AI from cheating, in the way of the AI gets some tech and on the same turn is using the tech

 

[dexters]

Originally posted by 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).

{snip}

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...

Pembroke, brilliant post.

The problem you describe is actually a BUG! The game treats A) Civilization you are trading with is destroyed by another Civ b) Trade route is cut due to war (road/habor destroyed) as the same as YOU breaking a perturn deal. The AI gets increadibly upset at you. That is why in a war, your good ally sometimes get angry after the war. The attitude modifiers for fighting the same enemy hides the bug during the duration of the war when a per turn deal may have been broken (not intentionally) because a trade route was cut. But the game blames you anyways. After the war, when the common enemy attitude modifier is removed, the friendly Indians is suddenly annoyed or even furious at you.

I'd like to see this fixed and there are a number of ways to fix this. One way is to treat all per turn deals you cut by trigger a war yourself as the ones that are penalized the most. But that still runs into the problem of the game not being able to identify the intent of the player as it would be very easy for players to step around this and "trigger" wars through alliances/MPPs so that they can get out of an per turn deal without being blamed for it.

That is why I like your idea of a compensation addition to diplomacy. IMO, if you don't have the cash, there should be an option to defer trade of a resource into the future at a slightly discounted price. Where essentially the AI civ has the right to immediately be trading X resource with you once a trade route is re-established. This way you pay no cash if you can't afford it and if you go ahead and trade that resource to someone else, you'll be forced to break that deal and trade that resource back to the original Civ if you have no surplus of that resource after the trade route is re-established.

I'll need to go back and read the other new posts and repond to them as well. The diplomacy feature in Civ 3 is something of an interest of mine as it is a lot of fun now and has the potential to be even better with locked alliances and the like.

LASTLY, and to be quite frank, if Breakaway games (the firm Firaxis is farming out the development of C3C to) can't manage to even fix this bug I just discussed, I'd be disappointed at Firaxis, the Civ franchise and the good folks at Breakaway who did a heck of a job with their past XP titles for Sid.

 

[dexters]

Originally posted by Esckey
More governments. Give the human players a fairer chance against AI(the whole AI sees everything that I can't, I get booted off their land in 2 turns while they can waltz across my mine no matter what, etc) 3rd party intervention, prevent the AI from flying off the handle when ever you make a slight request or politly tell them no when they ask for something completly lame, like offering wine for 20 turns inexchange he wants money, tech AND 1 or 2 resouces.


Oh and prevent the AI from cheating, in the way of the AI gets some tech and on the same turn is using the tech

This isn't about diplo features though and the AI doesn't cheat. It plays by the same rules with a few slight exceptions.

And I don't get your comment about AI getting some techs and on the same turn is using the tech. If you get a tech, you are supposed to use it now. Now in 10 turns.

 

[Chuot]

I wish there is some kind of a "peace keeper" role if you're a strongest nation, just like the U.S in real life.

And I totally oppose the way that AI know everything about our units' location, or even know one of our cities has weak defense. If the A.I will not know this I will stop doing "reloading" cheat which is the excuse reason for me to do .

 

[dexters]

Ok, I keep seeing this but please keep your comments to strickly diplomacy. Unrelated AI issues detract from the discussion.

FYI Chuot, the AI knowledge of your unit locations is old territory. The AI is not human, and while it knows the locations of your units, it can't really take advantage of it in the same way a human can. It is my understanding that only certain AI subsystems can access this. Attacks may move towards weakly defended cities, that's it. But any competent player can deal with these surprise attacks. If you have trouble dealing with that and have to reload and cheat even more than humans players already do, you have other bigger problems in your Civ3 skillset to worry about.

Going back on topic...

 

[HAND]

Being able to sell weaponary even if they don't have the technology would be good. Asking for a peace resolution on some one elses conflict would be fine too...generally a few more diplomatic options like in SMAC.

 

[Padma]

[color=600f0f]@chuot: This is a "Diplomacy" wish list discussion, so please keep to the topic at hand. The relatively small amount of AI cheating is well documented, and you should be able to find plenty of good discussion threads with a little searching.

@dexters: Don't get so defensive. Most threads tend to get a little off-track now and then. [/color]

 

[dexters]

Yes sir!

I'll keep that in mind sir.

 

[Baron Rakkan]

Why shouldn`t there be colonies, which can become independent after a time? For example you settle down on a new continent. The new continent is far away from the mother country, and there are living many barbarian tribes, which the player civilizes with weapons or with culture! If the "civilized" barbarians are more than the settlers(percentage), they can become(ex.: 100 years later or more) independent from the mothercountry and if they win the war they become independent. The new conutry should take a minor role, and should not be a protagonist civ! If you, the player, have a colony and there is an uprising(partisans, rebels, freedom fighters) you have the ability to let the freedom-fighters win the war without fight, or you must kill them in "set in advanced" turns(Sorry my english is not good, I hope you understand me). If you loose the country gets free! With minor role, I mean that this country has not the ability to change something or to begin wars(but you can conquer them another time and then they have an other status, notlike a colony but like a conquered country)This countries only exists and can make "minor diplomacy"(trade, change maps, right of passage etc.) they can`t use the full ability of diplomacy. They can build an army, but only for defend, the can earn money with trade, make alliances with other former colonies, etc. And there should be an further ability; Only one country(of the protagonist countries, not former colonies) can make a special diplomatic contract; To be a "protecting power" for the country. The protecting power earns 40% of the Income of this country and has the ability to move their soldiers in ttheir cities, without conquering them! You can use this ability for your interests ! I know, that I can write more to this theme, but it will last to long, so if you have questions´, ask.

Ther should also be this kind of Shism, which was in Civ1, and then was removed(Why?)

 

[EddyG17]

I like the Peace kepper Idea

 

[serpentx777]

I think a non-proliferation treaty would be cool, say a nation can't build nukes for 20 turns or something, just a thought......

 

[timberwolf4545]

I have been thinking more and more about Secession and are begining to think it would be a good idea. It would help contain Empire Sprawl if a cities could break off. I think it should be a slightly different calculation than a cultural flip. It should take into account the ammount of curruption the city has (which would be abatted by a new capital) and only groups of cities would only be able to break off. I think this would make players conentrate on having solid, smaller empire's than humongous mega empire's with weak peripheries. It would also take into account that people far from the empire's core eventually take on their own ethnicity in a way: Englishman Vs. Yanks Vs. Australians. Similiar roots, but a divergenct culture.

Perhaps groups of cities could peition their secession with tributes of gold, or ausome trading status (where it ties into diplomacy). Maybe cities could even negotiate! Like, if you promise to hurry build us libraries and coloseums, we'll stick around.

And if a deal cannot be reached, then open war with a new "freedom fighter" unit (geurilla, but very motivated) plus whatever military you had in the region would occur (yes, they would automotically flip!). Also, if you manage to take back a city, you would have a very hard time asserting control and defection would be common.

I'm on a roll her, so bear with me. Other Civs would be highly inclined to give aid to an independent Civ (see France and American revolution).

 

[Dman4eva]

I love timberwolf's idea about breakaway nations. It would make the game a lot more interesting and realistic.

The idea about brokering a peace treaty/declaration of war is great also, it would add realism and new tactics to the game.

An idea I had (although its probably too big for C3C) was that each nation could have multiple leader heads, and by multiple I mean 2 or 3. With each leaderhead could come new AI tactics, and changes could occur in mid-game.

Also there could be a senate for Republics or Democracies that could try to intervine on your political decisions like in the real world. For example you may want to declare war on a certain country, but the senate doesn't. They could try to either warn you, and by ignoring that it would lower your popularity, or they could outright stop you if you continually ignore them. If you do that for too long they could try to cecede. That would add a lot of realism to the game, and there could be a similar thing for monarchies called the court, but weaker, and instead of stopping you they go staight to an uprising.

Please share your thoughts and opinions.

 

[Cartouche Bee]

Well if you ever played 24 civs then you know it would be nice to have a real trade advisor. An advisor that could tell you who is willing to buy something you have and who can/will pay the most for the item or even just supply the list of offers from every civ for the item.

 

[dexters]

I think the trade/diplo screens needs fixing. Those were designed for 8 civ (max) games, and it shows.

By adding so many new civs in the 2 XPs, and with computing power moving ahead since 2001, I think Firaxis should know that people play more than 8 civs. My P III 450 can handle 16 civs just fine. I'm sure others out there with the new 3 ghz CPUs can run all 32 civs on the largest map there is.

I think they need to revise the trade and diplo screens so that it would look more like a spreadsheet and each Civ will have several columns including goods demanded, goods in supply.

 

[John Falkner]

Nobody more ideas? Here is one...

If i have a defence alliance with somebody i want an option to withdraw from the alliance if my partner starts the war.

 

[MarineCorps]

I like serpentex777s idea about not building something for 20 turns or so. I however think that more options for a peace treaty would be cool, like arms limatation(you pick a unit and they become unable to build it until that treaty ends, this would be useful if you fight the #1, or if your #1 someone else like #2 power and win you could prevent them from becoming #1 again) , perment trade with you, or not able to have a certain resource. This could prevent someone you were at were with from bothering you again. The closet I've come to the arm limitaion is using the editor and making one of the units hidden nationlty and invisible of course this relies on using the steal plans and that gets cosyly after a few turns. Tell me what you think.

 

[casual_moose]

here's some wild dance moves[dance]!