Please dont flame me if this has been suggested but i havent had the time to read all. I apologize if i have "stolen" someone's idea but here are some of mine ideas inspired by great game Alpha Centauri.
Diplomacy:
Pact of Brotherhood (Alpha Centarui) - Defensive Pact (Civ 4)
I dont like the concept of defensive pact in civ 4 because it doesnt give u breathing space at all.
Current:
Automatic war declaration on 3rd party that declared the war on your ally
Automatic pact canceling after you have declared the war on the 3rd party
Pretty shallow concept
Alpha Centauri concept:
Increased commerce between fractions in the pact
100% knowledge of pact member current production/research/military power etc...
If your ally is being attacked or declares war against 3rd party you are not obligated to join the war but you might be asked to do so and possibly lose the pact if your ally thinks you are not doing what is needed.
Your own wards dont endanger pact but you can demand your ally do engage in war or you would declare pact null and void
Limited to 2 fractions but you can have as much pacts as u can achieve.
My idea:
-Military pact-
*As much members as you can afford and it will be stated that n number of fractions are in the pact if its a public pact or it would be secret pact and must revealed by espionage.
*Members of military pact are not obligated to engage in any war if one of the members is waging the war.
*The member of pact can ask for help directly and possibly leave the pact, or ask for unit support - military production for other civ - this would be fairly realistic scenario and let me give you an imaginary example:
America starts war against Greece, and Russia is their ally of Greece. Why would Russia directly open fire against America? Instead Russia would supply Greece with advance military units or just enough number of units to repel the attacker.
*Members of the pact are free to declare war on anyone they want but the decision of the others to join or not to join that war should be done in the diplomatic fashion
*Open borders are something that shouldnt be a must with military pact. It should be done in a separate fashion
-Economic Pact-
*Commerce is increased towards those nations in the pact but reduced towards the other nations
*Unlimited number of members (same as for military pact)
*Possibility of sharing resources - maybe too much but read the explanation
Explanation: One civ has uranium and other one has none. By sharing both nations would have access to that resource but if both nations are using that resource for production of the unit that requires that resource production time would be double. If one nation using that resource and other one isnt, production is at max. Similar maths would apply to more than 2 civs in economic pact.
* Open borders are not obligation and are a different diplomatic issue
-Intelligence pact-
*Absolute intelligence sharing that means that civs in this kind of a pact know everything about each other and about other civs that at least one of the members of the pact have intel about
*As much members as civs in the game (same as for 2 previous pacts)
*Open borders as for previous 2 pacts
-Confederation-
* Civs in confederation retain their capitols and civics but everything else is 100% shared as if its the same country - resources, wars, sanctions, ability to use confederate cities as your own but change production and adjust % for tech/coins/culture/espionage.
* Confederation allows separation from confederate state with no penalties but will the others in confederation see to it as an ok matter is up to diplomacy skills of separated part
-Sanctions-
*Unlike "stop trading options" this would be seen in diplomacy window as a separate measure. Sanctions would be used either for stopping the trade between 2 fractions or closing the borders or both depending on the choice of sanctions.
*Provocation for sanctions could be atrocities, wars, espionage actions or what ever else there is.
*Confederate civs must vote for this measure since it stops trade/open borders for entire confederations
* Sanctions would be able to be voted in UN as well or Apostolic Palace or what ever place in CIV 5
-UN-
*The leader of UN would be able to call for UN resolution voting when he wants with a "cooldown" for the same resolution of at least 10 turns.
*The leader of UN should be able to impose VETO on any decision and that decision will not pass by default - what reactions would it provoke its up to diplomacy skills
*If there are 2 civs with somewhat equal voting power both must issue the VETO so it can pass - its up to the community to figure this out
*Making peace through UN shoulnt be imposed to anyone. Its nations' own choice if they want to stop or continue fighting but defying the UN decision can provoke sanctions and similar stuff for the party that declared the war. The defending nation could be helped by others that civs territory without provoking the war vs conquering civ. Its thats civs own choice whether they want to engage the war against other UN member
*If conquering civ decides not to obey the resolution of peace and continue fighting UN can call the vote to declare war against that fraction
*If defending civ refuses to make peace to the conquering civ there should be severe diplomatic penalties to that civ including sanctions if needed
*Making pace through UN should increase relations between conquering civ and other members due to respect of UN resolution
*If civs in war sign a peace treaty through UN and conquering civ has captured a city UN should decide if that city is to be returned to the defending civ or not
I think thats all i can think of now. Ill be posting more later on
Tnx for your time and again im sorry if someone has already posted something like this. Even if it has been posted im sure not everything is the same so we could make a good synergy.
Diplomacy:
Pact of Brotherhood (Alpha Centarui) - Defensive Pact (Civ 4)
I dont like the concept of defensive pact in civ 4 because it doesnt give u breathing space at all.
Current:
Automatic war declaration on 3rd party that declared the war on your ally
Automatic pact canceling after you have declared the war on the 3rd party
Pretty shallow concept
Alpha Centauri concept:
Increased commerce between fractions in the pact
100% knowledge of pact member current production/research/military power etc...
If your ally is being attacked or declares war against 3rd party you are not obligated to join the war but you might be asked to do so and possibly lose the pact if your ally thinks you are not doing what is needed.
Your own wards dont endanger pact but you can demand your ally do engage in war or you would declare pact null and void
Limited to 2 fractions but you can have as much pacts as u can achieve.
My idea:
-Military pact-
*As much members as you can afford and it will be stated that n number of fractions are in the pact if its a public pact or it would be secret pact and must revealed by espionage.
*Members of military pact are not obligated to engage in any war if one of the members is waging the war.
*The member of pact can ask for help directly and possibly leave the pact, or ask for unit support - military production for other civ - this would be fairly realistic scenario and let me give you an imaginary example:
America starts war against Greece, and Russia is their ally of Greece. Why would Russia directly open fire against America? Instead Russia would supply Greece with advance military units or just enough number of units to repel the attacker.
*Members of the pact are free to declare war on anyone they want but the decision of the others to join or not to join that war should be done in the diplomatic fashion
*Open borders are something that shouldnt be a must with military pact. It should be done in a separate fashion
-Economic Pact-
*Commerce is increased towards those nations in the pact but reduced towards the other nations
*Unlimited number of members (same as for military pact)
*Possibility of sharing resources - maybe too much but read the explanation
Explanation: One civ has uranium and other one has none. By sharing both nations would have access to that resource but if both nations are using that resource for production of the unit that requires that resource production time would be double. If one nation using that resource and other one isnt, production is at max. Similar maths would apply to more than 2 civs in economic pact.
* Open borders are not obligation and are a different diplomatic issue
-Intelligence pact-
*Absolute intelligence sharing that means that civs in this kind of a pact know everything about each other and about other civs that at least one of the members of the pact have intel about
*As much members as civs in the game (same as for 2 previous pacts)
*Open borders as for previous 2 pacts
-Confederation-
* Civs in confederation retain their capitols and civics but everything else is 100% shared as if its the same country - resources, wars, sanctions, ability to use confederate cities as your own but change production and adjust % for tech/coins/culture/espionage.
* Confederation allows separation from confederate state with no penalties but will the others in confederation see to it as an ok matter is up to diplomacy skills of separated part
-Sanctions-
*Unlike "stop trading options" this would be seen in diplomacy window as a separate measure. Sanctions would be used either for stopping the trade between 2 fractions or closing the borders or both depending on the choice of sanctions.
*Provocation for sanctions could be atrocities, wars, espionage actions or what ever else there is.
*Confederate civs must vote for this measure since it stops trade/open borders for entire confederations
* Sanctions would be able to be voted in UN as well or Apostolic Palace or what ever place in CIV 5
-UN-
*The leader of UN would be able to call for UN resolution voting when he wants with a "cooldown" for the same resolution of at least 10 turns.
*The leader of UN should be able to impose VETO on any decision and that decision will not pass by default - what reactions would it provoke its up to diplomacy skills
*If there are 2 civs with somewhat equal voting power both must issue the VETO so it can pass - its up to the community to figure this out
*Making peace through UN shoulnt be imposed to anyone. Its nations' own choice if they want to stop or continue fighting but defying the UN decision can provoke sanctions and similar stuff for the party that declared the war. The defending nation could be helped by others that civs territory without provoking the war vs conquering civ. Its thats civs own choice whether they want to engage the war against other UN member
*If conquering civ decides not to obey the resolution of peace and continue fighting UN can call the vote to declare war against that fraction
*If defending civ refuses to make peace to the conquering civ there should be severe diplomatic penalties to that civ including sanctions if needed
*Making pace through UN should increase relations between conquering civ and other members due to respect of UN resolution
*If civs in war sign a peace treaty through UN and conquering civ has captured a city UN should decide if that city is to be returned to the defending civ or not
I think thats all i can think of now. Ill be posting more later on
Tnx for your time and again im sorry if someone has already posted something like this. Even if it has been posted im sure not everything is the same so we could make a good synergy.
