Civ3 Conquests: Diplomacy Wish List/Discussions
- Thread starter dexters
- Start date
To answer my own question
(leaving out fixed alliances for now) The following general diplomatic options should be included.
- Some form of unit trading (if it needs to be restricted to avoid exploits, I'm cool with that)
- Ability to stop wars
AI Modifications
-Anything the human can do (unit trade/stop wars etc) the AI must also do. There is nothing worst than getting a feature the walks like, talk like and waddles like a feature put in for the "humans only". The AI doesn't use it and it ends up giving human players a disproportionate advantage in "shaping" the game.
-Make the AI plan ahead more frequently and decisively. It is common human strategy to bring in multiple parties against the AI in a war. The AI does this, but they take too long. Usually several turns before they start dragging other Civs in. A planned attack, or defending against a human attack should
-More agressive AI tech trading -- Too easy for humans to play tech brokers, where they buy an expensive tech from an AI, then turn around and sell it to another AI for another tech, thus getting 2 techs for the price of 1. I'm not saying humans should be denied this, but at least the AI should be able to do it. This may help them hold on to their leads longer.
More as I think of them.
(leaving out fixed alliances for now) The following general diplomatic options should be included.
- Some form of unit trading (if it needs to be restricted to avoid exploits, I'm cool with that)
- Ability to stop wars
AI Modifications
-Anything the human can do (unit trade/stop wars etc) the AI must also do. There is nothing worst than getting a feature the walks like, talk like and waddles like a feature put in for the "humans only". The AI doesn't use it and it ends up giving human players a disproportionate advantage in "shaping" the game.
-Make the AI plan ahead more frequently and decisively. It is common human strategy to bring in multiple parties against the AI in a war. The AI does this, but they take too long. Usually several turns before they start dragging other Civs in. A planned attack, or defending against a human attack should
-More agressive AI tech trading -- Too easy for humans to play tech brokers, where they buy an expensive tech from an AI, then turn around and sell it to another AI for another tech, thus getting 2 techs for the price of 1. I'm not saying humans should be denied this, but at least the AI should be able to do it. This may help them hold on to their leads longer.
More as I think of them.
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.
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.
pdescobar
Moo, baby. Moo.
The only diplomatic options I'd really like to see added are those mentioned. Fixed diplomacy, which is apparently included in some form, and an option for a third party to request/coerce/bribe one of two warring nations to make peace. The problem with this latter option is that all civ3 diplomacy is conducted between 2 nations at a time, and the war-stopper really requires 3. It can probably be worked around, at least in single-player, but it is not as easy as it might first appear. As for other issues such as AI improvements and customization options, there are lists all over, some of which I've contributed to, and at this point I'm waiting to see what kinds of things are there before I start going nuts with the suggestions 
ivory
What 's the big picture?
A better "negotiation table" interface. With keyboard control.
Anti-EUA
Prince
Unit trade and re-trade resources.
Knightblade pDM
Newly Born Warmonger
I'd like to see better and stronger nukes(both ICBMs and Tact Nukes). Maybe biological and chemical warfare as well(link that to Espionage; "Release Virus": A city suffers one pop drop every turn until it is cleaned up(A different "Clean Pollution" button perhaps?))
I would like to be able to decide whether to say "please remove your troops from our territory" or "get out or declare war". That way you could enforce your borders much more effectively agaisnt scouts, workers, and settlers.
Also, train the AI to use artillery. I think that would be huge in terms of how a lot of people fight wars.
I don't have PTW so perhaps the AI is better at artillery use.
Also, train the AI to use artillery. I think that would be huge in terms of how a lot of people fight wars.
I don't have PTW so perhaps the AI is better at artillery use.billindenver
King
First, I should NEVER be penalized for breaking a treaty when it isn't my fault. If I trade GPT to a civ for a technology, and that civ is killed off by another civ before the 20 turns ends, that's not my fault.
If I'm trading GPT to a civ, and that civ then attacks me, it's not my fault.
If I'm trading GPT to a civ, and that civ loses it's harbor city to another civ, it's not my fault.
The idea behind those things is great: if I break a gpt deal, other civs are less likely to give me gpt deals. In practice, it sucks. The last 3 games I've played, gpt deals have been nearly impossible, and it was never my fault.
Also, I'd like a better advisor. If I am about to start a war, instead of just a warning "Are you sure" screen, tell me which treaties I'm about to break. Warn me that they have a MPP with my trading partner. Along the same lines, warn me on the turn before trade agreements, peace treaties, and other agreements expire.
Also, I'd like to see the UN used differently. The owner of the UN should get to call votes to impose sanctions. If a country launches an aggressive war, you could have a UN vote to impose an embargo. If the aggression continues, you could have a UN vote to declare hostilities against the aggressor. The embargos and military alliances formed at the UN would be free of cost to the owner. Also, you should be able to impose sanctions for using nukes (or even building nukes maybe). Also, maybe allowing sanctions for excess pollution.
If I'm trading GPT to a civ, and that civ then attacks me, it's not my fault.
If I'm trading GPT to a civ, and that civ loses it's harbor city to another civ, it's not my fault.
The idea behind those things is great: if I break a gpt deal, other civs are less likely to give me gpt deals. In practice, it sucks. The last 3 games I've played, gpt deals have been nearly impossible, and it was never my fault.
Also, I'd like a better advisor. If I am about to start a war, instead of just a warning "Are you sure" screen, tell me which treaties I'm about to break. Warn me that they have a MPP with my trading partner. Along the same lines, warn me on the turn before trade agreements, peace treaties, and other agreements expire.
Also, I'd like to see the UN used differently. The owner of the UN should get to call votes to impose sanctions. If a country launches an aggressive war, you could have a UN vote to impose an embargo. If the aggression continues, you could have a UN vote to declare hostilities against the aggressor. The embargos and military alliances formed at the UN would be free of cost to the owner. Also, you should be able to impose sanctions for using nukes (or even building nukes maybe). Also, maybe allowing sanctions for excess pollution.
Norlamand
Procrastinator Rex
Unit trades are a must. It expands the diplomacy options significantly by allowing you to essentially fight a war by proxy.
I like inudog's idea of another option short of war to urge the AI to remove its rabble from my land.
The peace broker idea is nice too. It should get you a rep boost, especially with the factions at war.
Perhaps the ability to negotiate placement of airbases in another civs territory would be useful.
Selling food and/or shields to other civs would expand the table but I can't quite see how it would be usefull.
I like inudog's idea of another option short of war to urge the AI to remove its rabble from my land.
The peace broker idea is nice too. It should get you a rep boost, especially with the factions at war.
Perhaps the ability to negotiate placement of airbases in another civs territory would be useful.
Selling food and/or shields to other civs would expand the table but I can't quite see how it would be usefull.
Hellfire
Prince
Inudog:
You already have this ability. When a unit from a Civ does not have a ROP with you, if you go to the diplomacy screen one of the options is usually something like "Remove your forces from our territory or declare war!"
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!
Lets tackle the question as it should be, by taking up a notch. Currently when the AI processes its moves, it takes into consideration the position of resources that are not currently visible to a human player. To phrase the "functionality" correctly, the AI prioritizes areas with strategic resources over other areas, regardless of the civs current tech level. Perhaps a correct change would be for the AI to ignore undisplayed resources based on its own tech level until that advance was reached.
The only reason why I say this is because the current phrasing is ridiculous, and because the current phrasing doesn't address the issue nor provide a proper solution.
You already have this ability. When a unit from a Civ does not have a ROP with you, if you go to the diplomacy screen one of the options is usually something like "Remove your forces from our territory or declare war!"
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!
Lets tackle the question as it should be, by taking up a notch. Currently when the AI processes its moves, it takes into consideration the position of resources that are not currently visible to a human player. To phrase the "functionality" correctly, the AI prioritizes areas with strategic resources over other areas, regardless of the civs current tech level. Perhaps a correct change would be for the AI to ignore undisplayed resources based on its own tech level until that advance was reached.
The only reason why I say this is because the current phrasing is ridiculous, and because the current phrasing doesn't address the issue nor provide a proper solution.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
If we stick to things with a reasonably chance of being implemented, I want to be able to cajole warrings civs into making peace, and to have the rules for when you're blamed for the breach of a treaty overhauled.
More optimistically, I'd want to be able to pay civ A to fight civ B without being at war with B myself. A kind of "proxy war". Being able to lend out units to A during this would of course be great, especially if there was a risk that B discovered this, which of course would blacken you rep similarly to espionage actions. There could be given chance of discovery each time one of the lended units are defeated, as captives are interogated.
Edit: Grammar and spelling.
More optimistically, I'd want to be able to pay civ A to fight civ B without being at war with B myself. A kind of "proxy war". Being able to lend out units to A during this would of course be great, especially if there was a risk that B discovered this, which of course would blacken you rep similarly to espionage actions. There could be given chance of discovery each time one of the lended units are defeated, as captives are interogated.
Edit: Grammar and spelling.
billindenver
King
No, the designers should be able to program it in. It's ridiculous that a civ plops a city in some crappy desert or tundra terrain in 3500 BC, only to have oil or Iron Works resources appear to the human 4500 years later. In analyzing city placement, the computer must currently look at food, shields, gold, resources, and luxuries available. All you have to code is, when viewing resources, count only those which have been discovered. It's no more difficult than telling me I can't build a tank without oil.Originally posted by Hellfire
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!
@Hellfire:
You are correct to a certain degree. But, have you ever tried this when there was a only a worker, scout, or settler in your territory? The option you will have is something to the effect of "Please remove your forces from our borders." To which the AI responds OK and either leaves or doesn't (usually doesn't). It is only after many turns of that or if the unit is militaristic that you get the option "Remove your forces from our territory or declare war!" When the AI responds to that, their forces either get automatically removed from your territory or they declare war. You have likely experienced this from the other side, when AI asks you to leave on one turn and then demands the next.
Anyways, I once read that there is a formula to figure out when it switches from request to demand. It had something to do with # of turns in the territory, proximity to cities, and ADM values of the units.
My point is that the formula is good for the AI, but as a human I should be able to decide if I want to request or demand they leave.
@billindenver: (edit: Thanks)
You are correct to a certain degree. But, have you ever tried this when there was a only a worker, scout, or settler in your territory? The option you will have is something to the effect of "Please remove your forces from our borders." To which the AI responds OK and either leaves or doesn't (usually doesn't). It is only after many turns of that or if the unit is militaristic that you get the option "Remove your forces from our territory or declare war!" When the AI responds to that, their forces either get automatically removed from your territory or they declare war. You have likely experienced this from the other side, when AI asks you to leave on one turn and then demands the next.
Anyways, I once read that there is a formula to figure out when it switches from request to demand. It had something to do with # of turns in the territory, proximity to cities, and ADM values of the units.
My point is that the formula is good for the AI, but as a human I should be able to decide if I want to request or demand they leave.
@billindenver: (edit: Thanks)
billindenver
King
OK, I fixed it. Hellfire typed your name in the first part of his message and I didn't notice it when I was selecting text out of his post.
Originally posted by Hellfire
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!
Lets tackle the question as it should be, by taking up a notch. Currently when the AI processes its moves, it takes into consideration the position of resources that are not currently visible to a human player. To phrase the "functionality" correctly, the AI prioritizes areas with strategic resources over other areas, regardless of the civs current tech level. Perhaps a correct change would be for the AI to ignore undisplayed resources based on its own tech level until that advance was reached.
The only reason why I say this is because the current phrasing is ridiculous, and because the current phrasing doesn't address the issue nor provide a proper solution.
.....not impossible to do. It might be complex (Civ is already very complex) but it could be done.
shu2
Chieftain
i also wanna be able to help a civ at war against another civ, ie minerals resources... and get appreciated for it...
RegentMan
Deity
Non-Aggression Pacts baby!
