Diplomacy

[Winner]

What about diplomacy? I hope it will be VERY improved - in Civ3, it's terrible. I want for example some Alpha Centauri options, such as the possibility of surrender and creating satellite states, colonies and so forth. Also there is no option in Civ3 (and IMO the main flaw of diplomacy in civ3) to force other nations to make peace with other. If I extend it, I would like to have a possibility of making large alliances (such as NATO), unions and so on.

But from some reason, I have a feeling the diplomacy in Civ4 will be even worse than it is in Civ3...

 

[Che Guava]

I'm crossing my fingers that your wish list will come true! As for the World Hockey Championship, no dice! If we don't have hockey, all we've got left is beer and William Shatner....

 

[Darwin420]

I'm heartened by the news that different leaders will have different personalities.. that's something that Civ3 didn't have. Instead of all the AI leaders acting like the same, puffed-up, playground bully, we'll at least see a difference in how the leaders act.

As for more diplomatic options, I think it will be improved over Civ3. We've already seen some SMAC-style influence in Empire management - no set governments, bunches of options for social engineering (YAY!!!), socio-economic policies (slavery, etc), religion, health... with those kinds of improvements announced, I'm sure we'll have a ton more options for diplomacy.

I'd like to see:
War Alliances (that last only until peace is declared, or achieving a certain wartime objective);
Peace Alliances (think UN Peacemaking.. uhh, PeaceKEEPING );
Economic Alliances (per turn trade bonuses without trading true resources);
global/alliance bans of certain technologies/practices (nuclear weapons, slavery);
Scientific Alliances - two or more civs research the same tech under this agreement, and it increases the rate of research.

If such things as Provinces and Minor Nations are added to cIV, then I'd like to see the incorporation of Satellite States, Protectorates, Semi-Autonomous states (things that are easier than simple conquest, but you don't get the full benefit of those cities/provinces), plus the likelihood that the longer a mini-state is protected by your nation, the more of a chance they will sue for full integration (or possibly sue for seccession).

Just some of my ideas.

 

[Winner]

I'm heartened by the news that different leaders will have different personalities.. that's something that Civ3 didn't have. Instead of all the AI leaders acting like the same, puffed-up, playground bully, we'll at least see a difference in how the leaders act.

As for more diplomatic options, I think it will be improved over Civ3. We've already seen some SMAC-style influence in Empire management - no set governments, bunches of options for social engineering (YAY!!!), socio-economic policies (slavery, etc), religion, health... with those kinds of improvements announced, I'm sure we'll have a ton more options for diplomacy.

I'd like to see:
War Alliances (that last only until peace is declared, or achieving a certain wartime objective);
Peace Alliances (think UN Peacemaking.. uhh, PeaceKEEPING );
Economic Alliances (per turn trade bonuses without trading true resources);
global/alliance bans of certain technologies/practices (nuclear weapons, slavery);
Scientific Alliances - two or more civs research the same tech under this agreement, and it increases the rate of research.

Sounds good, but I don't want to be too optimistic

If such things as Provinces and Minor Nations are added to cIV, then I'd like to see the incorporation of Satellite States, Protectorates, Semi-Autonomous states (things that are easier than simple conquest, but you don't get the full benefit of those cities/provinces), plus the likelihood that the longer a mini-state is protected by your nation, the more of a chance they will sue for full integration (or possibly sue for seccession).

Well, the best thing would be a regime change in conqured countries. For example Rome (Republic) invades Germany (Fascism), defeats it by taking most of german cities and entering the capital city. Than an option would appear, you'll chose a regime you want to introduce in Germany. Thana cede back some of their cities and place occupation forces in them to watch over new government. Umm, that would be excellent

 

[Winner]

What annoys me the most is the impossibility of maintaining good relations with other Civs.

Just imagine how stupid this concept is - you raze some cities three thousands years ago and that Civ hate you forever. In fact, there are many countries in real world, which has done very brutal things to others in the past, but now are very respected. For example Japan or Germany.

 

[Darwin420]

I think that religion should play a role in how long a civ holds a grudge... if you look at real-world examples, there are differences in how long religion 'remembers' grievances in the past. The crusades occured over a long period of time; some sects of Islam have been holding grudges for almost 2,000 years. Then, there are religions like, say, Buddhism, which pretty much moves on.

I don't think religion should be the only factor, but it should definitely influence relations.

But, I agree with you; re-establishing good relations should not only be possible, but feasible as well.

EDIT: THIS IS MY 200TH POST!!!!

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I think that religion should play a role in how long a civ holds a grudge... if you look at real-world examples, there are differences in how long religion 'remembers' grievances in the past. The crusades occured over a long period of time; some sects of Islam have been holding grudges for almost 2,000 years. Then, there are religions like, say, Buddhism, which pretty much moves on.

I don't think religion should be the only factor, but it should definitely influence relations.

But, I agree with you; re-establishing good relations should not only be possible, but feasible as well.

EDIT: THIS IS MY 200TH POST!!!!

This is why they aren't giving bonuses to the religions, because I can immediately give a real world example of Buddhist countries holding onto a grudge (actually pretty much for razing a city)...although that was by another Buddhist country so perhaps religions could hold grudges against other religions longer than countries do against each other.

Plus if you are talking about relations with the AI player (rather than relations with their people, the grudge shouild be held as long as a Human Player holds a grudge, ie you break a treaty on me, I won't trust you the rest of the game (and for several games after that)... of course just because I don't trust you doesn't mean I have to go to war with you right now.)

 

[narmox]

I just hope they fixed stupid things like:

- if you are sending gpt or goods to a nation, and a nation in between you declares war and cuts the trade route, your reputation takes a hit because you stop sending the goods

- if you have a military alliance against someone, and that nation gets destroyed during the duration of the MA, you take a reputation hit for cancelling the MA.

- the AI doesn't value your help at all. ie: you propose a MA or MPP, then either you give something to the AI, or you just get the straight deal without any gift/trade. It's never a situation where the AI offers you techs, money or goods in exchange for a MA or MPP...

 

[microbe]

CIV3 does have different personalities, kind of:
1. different aggression setting for different CIV
2. different "favored and shunned" government setting for different CIV

This affects the AI attitude toward you, which in turn would have some difference with how AI deals with you. Of course, very limited.

 

[covenant]

Love all the things here and to am nervous about diplomacy cause nothing at has been mentioned about it and it was the biggest flaw in Civ 3

 

[Winner]

Love all the things here and to am nervous about diplomacy cause nothing at has been mentioned about it and it was the biggest flaw in Civ 3

I really don't know, why the diplomacy in Civ3 wasn't build on SMAC base. Diplomacy there was very advanced, though still not perfect (and I am afraid standard that I want will never be achieved ).

 

[Brain]

I agree that diplomacy should be re-worked and I like the ideas presented so far in this thread. Here is a list of things that I would really like to see:

- Replace the ridiculous "rep hit" idea with varying levels of reputation. Similarly to attitude, your reputation would influence how good of a deal you get.
- More refined deals such as "We will trade you technology X if you promise not to sell it to anyone else".
- Conspiracy - i.e. secret alliances against other states before war is actually declared.
- Variable length deals. The 20 turn limit is a real pain in the neck.
- Diplomacy that reflects social changes. In 1000 BC it might have been normal to do pointy stick diplomacy, but in the modern age attacking your neighbors for no good reason is a sure way to get everybody against you.

 

[Scorpi]

- Diplomacy that reflects social changes. In 1000 BC it might have been normal to do pointy stick diplomacy, but in the modern age attacking your neighbors for no good reason is a sure way to get everybody against you.

You mean such as the invasion of Iraq? Diplomacy has always been the same. Those who are millitarily or economically superior gets it their way. Period.

 

[Commander Bello]

[...]
- Variable length deals. The 20 turn limit is a real pain in the neck.
[...]

I especially agree on that. There are reasons to have low expensive 5-turn-ROPs. As well as there are reasons to have 50-turn-non-agression pacts....

You should be able to negotiate the length of diplomatic agreements, and it should have an impact on the "costs".

 

[dh_epic]

Not true, Scorpi. Another rule of civilization is that you cannot govern without the consent of the governed. Military might can open a lot of doors for you, but if the bully keeps throwing his weight around unjustly, the people hold that bully accountable. That's why empires fall, and why it's a bad idea in the long run to be an empire (in the aggressive-expansionist sense).

 

[oldStatesman]

Not true, Scorpi. Another rule of civilization is that you cannot govern without the consent of the governed. Military might can open a lot of doors for you, but if the bully keeps throwing his weight around unjustly, the people hold that bully accountable. That's why empires fall, and why it's a bad idea in the long run to be an empire (in the aggressive-expansionist sense).

Ah, but those of us who are not Methusilah's that have to live in the short run must suffer fools and bullies as our leaders...

 

[dh_epic]

Of course. But according to Civ, you might not live more than 3 turns in the classical age.

History is a marathon, not a sprint.

 

[oldStatesman]

Of course. But according to Civ, you might not live more than 3 turns in the classical age.

Ah, but if I got to hear Mozart and Liszt play in person one time it would be a glorious 3 turns....

 

[Brain]

You mean such as the invasion of Iraq? Diplomacy has always been the same. Those who are millitarily or economically superior gets it their way. Period.

I wasn't refering to any speific war. What I meant is that as civilizations become more "civilized" war becomes less and less acceptable. In ancient times the rulers did not need any justification for war as they were mandated by the gods, but in a representative government you've got to have at least some explaining to do.

I also think there should be ways to make tangible threats. By that I don't mean the stupid "give us X or we will declare war", but actually using your military strength for other diplomatic means. For example, "Remove your troups from X and make peace with them or else we'll have to intervene" or "Stop researching nuclear weapons or we'll get the whole world against you".

Right now I think Civ3 is strongly biased in favor of warmongers. I would be very glad if diplomacy was a viable game strategy. Improvements such as assinging a "diplomatic strength" to nations can help achieve this. For example, if the AI knows that you have many friends they may be less likely to attack you. Your friends should also get nervous if someone threatens you.

All of this would make it possible to have a whole stand-off/bluffing game before war is actually declared instead of just declaring war all of a suden for no reason other than the desire for conquest.

 

[dh_epic]

Yeah. In a game where the UN, democracy, and even environmentalism are inevitable... it should be equally inevitable for public opinion of war to evolve. I think a few more constraints on modern age warfare would not only be consistent with Civ's description of the world, but might even improve strategy and intrigue in the last stretch of the game.