Diplomacy

[Aussie_Lurker]

I confess that, given the ZERO mention of diplomacy or trade so far, I am not very hopeful that any MAJOR improvements will be made to either of these systems. This is a shame given how ultimately lacking they both currently are, and religion doesn't really make up for it either. If this does prove the case (and if the overall victory conditions are not significantly improved as well) then I doubt very much that I will be buying the game-at least until the expansions come out!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Vael]

Even if other people think the game is still great fun without those elements?

Of course there are certain things I'd like to see in the next Civ-game, but I'm not going to pass judgment on it yet. Yes, I will get it simply because it's Civilization. If I enjoy it then that's great. If not, oh well, I've wasted money on worse things.

 

[Commander Bello]

[...] Yes, I will get it simply because it's Civilization. If I enjoy it then that's great. If not, oh well, I've wasted money on worse things.

May I assume that this is the way you go and buy your car as well?

To be honest, this seems to be the attitude which made them refrain from fixing C3C, finally. "Why should we put more effort in it? We are completely lost, and they will buy the next game, anyway..."

 

[Vael]

Well, I will buy it based on what I already know about the game. They haven't made it an RTS, they haven't gone completely wild with what they're adding or removing - it will still be Civilization. Even if it's an updated Civ 3 it would still be worth buying.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Vael, just because people can enjoy the game without these features, does that mean they will enjoy the game any less if they are in the game? I doubt it very much! Besides, I am just pointing out how the game content will effect MY purchasing decisions, not trying to tell people what THEY should do.
As for buying the game if it is merely an improved Civ3? No, afraid not-I made that mistake when I bought civ2 (or, as I call it, Civ1b)-though it seemed a great idea at the time !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Vael]

Funny you say that - most critics of Civ 3 say that it was Civ 2.5, or often even a step back.

As for your other issue, I never said that the addition of these aspects would make the game worse.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Surely you mean SMAC 2.5??? After all, I felt that Civ3 was very VERY different from Civ2-and a major leap forward in many respects.
Unfortunately, it was also a big step back-in some areas-when compared to SMAC. Fortunately, though, I was only judging it in comparison to the civ series, not SMAC.
Lastly, I wasn't neccessarily implying that this was what you were saying. I just think its unfortunate that we may have yet another game which primarily appeals to the warmongers and-to a much lesser degree-to the builders, whilst adding nothing to appeal to the diplomats/arbiters amongst us!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[volbound1700]

Civ 4 should model diplomacy after Master of Orion 2 you could really play politics in that game. Civ2 diplomacy was not bad but lacked two things: trade cities(if us in ww2 scenario, i can give paris back to france when i conquer it) and civ2 had no way to outright declare war without attacking or like i always did put troops in their land and wait until they get mad.

Plus I liked the trade treaty and research treaty aspect you got on MOO2.

 

[Winner]

Civ 4 should model diplomacy after Master of Orion 2 you could really play politics in that game. Civ2 diplomacy was not bad but lacked two things: trade cities(if us in ww2 scenario, i can give paris back to france when i conquer it) and civ2 had no way to outright declare war without attacking or like i always did put troops in their land and wait until they get mad.

Plus I liked the trade treaty and research treaty aspect you got on MOO2.

Well, as some minimum, yes. But I'd like many, many, many other options!

Just watch evening news and all that diplomatic issues which are going on today. For example the attempts to discourage Iran from its nuclear weapons program. In MOO2, the most stupid thing was, that your allies will attack themselves no matter what you do. You can ask them to stop, but they'll do it again. In real world, there are wide alliances such as NATO and its members don't wage wars with each other.

Also the concept of TRADE is stupid in Civ3. Except some resources, you can be economically independent from other civs. Well, that's nonsense. In real world, not a single world power can live without extensive trade with others.

BTW I'd like the more "ideological" diplomacy. For example in democracy, there would be the elections (such as those in Galactic Civ.) and you would need to have majority to do some things (declare wars, making some treaties or economic policy).

 

[angelus512]

I agree diplomacy better get a serious totally 100% new overhaul. From my opinion, if you think about it, diplomacy is the #1 crucial element to any civilization experience.
Diplomacy lets "people" put their own touch's onto the game that maybe weren't necessarily intended by programmers.
It lets you manipulate any game to your own personal tastes of play. Although given the diplomacy options at the moment its limited.

#1 the AI needs to realise if it has just been spanked from say 20 cities down to 4 it needs to have begged and offered anything for peace...AGES AGO. And it shouldn't go around as a 4 city useless state declaring war on everybody via MA against far flung empires or ones close which is just RIDICULOUS.
If anything it should be begging various empires to A) become a vassal state B) totally join the empire, or C) just generally lick a** and sign non-aggression pacts and what not.

The ability to actually form Unions needs to be done SERIOUSLY.
In a game i just recently finished up I played on Marla's Europe map. Austria, my land was about the size of Austro-Hapsburg empire at its height or there abouts.
Germany was split in 2 half at north of my boarders and half at southern end. And Rome had all of italy.
Now through blind fate Rome+Germany+Austria(me) ended up fighting common enemies and being stalwarts against the barbarian Eastern europeans and France (grins).
Anywho it occured to me a billion times WHY it was not possible to form a multilateral alliance/union of sorts where Germany, Rome and Austria(me)
agree to have ROP's through all states, we declare war on whomever delcares war on either of us, the alliance gets given a name in the press like Vienna-Berlin Axis or some garbage like they did in civ2 with (such and such signs Versailles pact).
and it lasts for 20 turns and members can elect to leave the union at that stage or continue. SIMPLE, and it helps to stop the snowball effect people talk about.
As it turned out though due to the poor nature of civ3 currently...Germany declare war on rome via a Military Alliance with a country all 3 of us were currently at war with..until that momeny of course. And i just realised how totalyl stupid that decision was and how diplomacy needs an overhaul to provide options to prevent such OBVIOUSLY dumb decisions.

For example.
1 HUGE AI civ goes on a rampage and you know you are the only person remotely capable of stopping it. But you're too small. You are going to need all the other civs SERIOUSLY pitching in and helping you.
So you do MA's, and it works...sorta. Problem becomes when they sign peace treaties with the aggressor AI pretty damn quickly because they are scared.
Or they continue to war other AI's rather than address the main menace etc and the whole game just fragments stupidly.
Getting a union together of all civs v the aggressor AI would effectively do a GREAT deal to help stop the Snowball Effect and if it was coded properly ensure that you just don't end up creating another monster in its place.
Once the aggressor AI is put in check various sign-ups to the Union see that the union's job is done and they hence leave it and continue their own little wars of self-interest until another threat arises to concern the planet etc.

All up i guess i'm saying that diplomacy adds the serious flavour to civ gaming and if its not completely overhauled and done correctly I dare say Civ4 will ultimately just be scrubbed up civ3 in a flashy looking business suit.
No doubt i will probably buy civ4 but it will serously give me a very dim view of the franchise.

Plus the lack of GOOD diplomacy restricts the game's variety and hence replayability.
Maybe 1 game i am a middle-weight civ but through various acts of intelligence and luck on my part i actually punch FAR above my size.
Why? Because i've got 4 vassal states clinging to my good favour and they give me whatever i want, tech's, gold, military units and diplomatic clout in negotiations, because they all depend on me for one GOOD reason or another.

Or in another game i end up beging a huge badass civ thats paying it out to all who oppose me. In a normal civ3 game by this stage I would have quit and started a new game because its obvious to me by now that NOBODY can defeat me, even if the whole world ganged up because i know they will also be at war with each other and hence no cohesive effort.
But the NEW diplomatic system makes all these 8-12 other smaller medium sized civs band together in a big Union. The union calls on my diplomatic offices (not individual civs but the UNION as seperate entity to individual civ).
They ask me to stop war on all nations, hand back various cities or swaths of land and make reparations or face consequences.

I decide that i won't stop my war and i'll take the chance. I send them packing and its me vs the Union.
Unfortuantely i end up losing slowly, bit by bit, even though size is evenly matched the combined different forces of many nations overwhelm me and i beg for mercy.
Just as the union is about to own me completley various civs who liked me in the first place see the union as too constricting for them.
And they don't want me dead. I was good to them when i was a warmonger.
They leave the union and maybe sign-up with me against it and so the diplomatic system allows the world to sea-saw and real skill enables you to win.
Not just huge size.

Sorry about long post but i enjoyed writting my ideas. In short if civ4 doesn't have new diplomacy thats GOOD then i will buy it but i'll damnwell regret having to do so. Only reason i will is because in generaly civ has been good. But...without addressing the obvious then i will jsut consider it to be a gone franchise and any civ5 won't be seeing me on its buyers list.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

You make some VERY persausive arguments Angelus. One thing I would like to add, though, is that the concept of an alliance should br broadened. Military Alliances, for instance, should not be simply a precursor to war, but should instead be a much deeper version of the Mutual Protection Pact-one which actually allows you to station units within eachothers borders, forts, cities etc, and where the exchange of military techs and units is allowed.
There should, however, also be scope for both political and/or economic alliances, which allow nations to form broader, multi-civ entities, which have more diplomatic/economic clout than either nation has individually. Of course, such unions would be a good deal for both AI and Human player alike, as all parties retain a certain measure of independance, whilst gaining benefits from co-operation. This is a very different situation from a Vassal/Protectorate, who gains his survival by sacrificing almost all his independance.
By implementing such diplomatic options, I can only see the game getting much, MUCH, MUCH better!!!!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[angelus512]

I agree with what you said Aussie_Lurker. Had not thought of that but I only wanted to list in detail 1-3 of my ideas otherwise I could literally write a book.
Something else I thought of after I'd posted was the UN function in diplomacy.
Now i daresay its probably been said before but I need to say it so I feel that at the very least i've TRIED to make a slight difference incase any Firaxis people drop over.

The UN or maybe League of Nations should be introducted MUCH earlier than in civ3.
And it should have a fairly...fairly central role in the game.
In GalCiv the Galactic version of the UN allowed the various parties to vote periodically on Universal Rules.
You could of course choose to NOT be a part of the Galactic UN and hence bound by its rules...but the price is no other civ likes you very much or will trade with you *i think*.
Anywho in Civ4 the UN should come earlier, around about the time of seafaring-middle age era when most civs can talk to each other and trade world maps etc fairly easy.

And it would offer an advantage ot being a GOOD civilization diplomatically. Why?
Suppose the League convenes and there are lets say 4 members for this example.

Germany, France, Italy and Russia.
Russia is big and bad and has been furiously exapdning at Germany's expense. But they haven't exactly been "kosher" about how they made war.
The random suggestion/event that comes up is voting on penalising warmongering nations by restricting ALL trade to that nation.
Russia votes NO but because they have LOW international standing and hence LOW diplomatic clout it is hard to sway the other nations to vote NO.
So Italy, France and Germany vote YES>
Italy France and Germany restrict any trade to Russia full stop.

or in the later stages the League convenes to vote on the total blanket ban of Nuclear Weapons. If the vote turns out to be a YES the ability to make Nuke's is removed unless you leave the League.
But you could have TONS of random event votes like that.
The only difference i would note is that in GalCiv the Galactic UN assigned voting power largely based on how big an empire you were.
Obviously this has its clear flaws that a big empire with big voting power is probably big because its beating up on everybody.

In civ4 there would have to be a numerical way of assigning voting power that isn't necessarily directly related to a civ's size. Although a civ's size should obviously be a factor.
Int he real world if America had like almost no voting power that would clearly be stupid on 1 level because America is rather large. But america's voting power comes form its eocnomy and military might obviously.

But yeah a UN idea should definitely be adopted. It would bring so many options.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Actually, the best way I think of a League assigning voting power is through its resolutions...not through Voting on a particular methodology, but through specific Civs Asking for a change in someone's voting status (Ie A proposal to give 4 more votes to Germany in the UN...and you all better vote for it or else away go my carrots and out come the sticks... This creates a realpolitick voting system similar to the one we have now)

I think the notion of Balance of Power also needs some serious consideration...currently all it is involves civs not liking big powers..the idea of alliances to offset that is probably the best. (also it might allow a enemy power to make peace with an alliance rather than worry about a bunch of individual groups)

 

[al_thor]

One thing I would like to see is the ability to 'play the peacemaker', where you could call a meeting of the heads of 2 (or more) warring Civs and attempt to moderate a peace. If the talks fail, you should be able to give the aggressor an ultimatum - make peace or face another foe (yourself).

 

[covenant]

While I imagine, diplomacy will be improved to at least the level of SMAC (which should have happened in civ 3) I highly doubt it is going to be on a level that I am wanting or most of you are. My only hope is that they have not said anything because they are still working hard at diplomacy and dont have anything final yet.

It would be a huge disappointment if diplomacy is not hugely improved. Building the game from scratch and not building it with all these ideas says Fraxis did not do its due diligence nor were they listening to there fan base very closely. I very much hope I am wrong on this and have to eat my words come November.

 

[mastertyguy]

One thing I would like to see is the ability to 'play the peacemaker', where you could call a meeting of the heads of 2 (or more) warring Civs and attempt to moderate a peace. If the talks fail, you should be able to give the aggressor an ultimatum - make peace or face another foe (yourself).

It would be great. Maybe it would start at a special tech (nationalisation? everything starts at nationalisation )

 

[angelus512]

al_thor: Good idea. I'd love an option like that as well.

As for whether civ4's diplomacy is going to be good. Who knows.
Galactic Civilization 2 is to be released this year and it is already in Beta testing stages and it has absolutely no diplomatic system in it as yet.
Leads me to believe things like diplomatic system are perhaps the last things to be built into a game which is perhaps why civ4 has not mentioned diplomacy.

Although on the flip-side they outta be aware of how crucial most of us think it is and should be giving us the details or promise that its going to be changed.

In short and i think this is an important point that MUST be illustrated.

Without big diplomacy changes as well as AI intelligence changes then civ4 will essentially be the same game as Civ3 if you really think about it.
New units, new races, new tech's, that is all just fluff really. Nice, but ultimately nothing ground-breaking.

Civ2 to Civ3 for example in my opinion was really a half-step rather than a big leap.
It just seemed like a big leap because of the huge unit, race and tech changes and the ages.
But ultimately civ2 could be played in a similar fashion to civ3 because the diplomatic system was roughly comparable. ROUGHLY..

Lets hope civ4 and 3's diplo are worlds apart so we can have play styles worlds apart from prior civ's. After all isn't that what its about? Having something new that isn't roughly the same?

 

[Dida]

I don't think they are putting much efford into diplomacy, because it is not the element that will sell the game. What will sell is 3D graphics, cool uniques, cool techs, etc.

 

[oldStatesman]

I don't think they are putting much efford into diplomacy, because it is not the element that will sell the game. What will sell is 3D graphics, cool uniques, cool techs, etc.

And if that is truly the case Civ as a franchise is in bad decline.

That would be very short sited - what makes Civ uniquie among games is it's attention to detail - granted it is not as 'sexy' as a lot of new games but it is one of the best overall strategy games out there. I am new at it - but I have played pc games for over 20 years off and on - and it truly is different.