European Union?

[<Nexus>]

There was already some discussions about the idea of "How great it would be to have a way to form EU", so here's an idea:

Building a civic building European Membership would lunch an event that sets Alliance, Open Borders and Free Trade Agreement with every other civ that also has built European Membership. European Membership would require Republic civic to guarantee that only smaller civs would become members. So they could well compete with larger civs.
If a civ switches out of Republic his Alliance is replaced with Defensive Pact with every other member.

So joining and leaving this EU would be muuuuch easier than the real one but I think it's okay

Do you think it is doable and worth to think of it?

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

There was already some discussions about the idea of "How great it would be to have a way to form EU", so here's an idea:

Building a civic building European Membership would lunch an event that sets Alliance, Open Borders and Free Trade Agreement with every other civ that also has built European Membership. European Membership would require Republic civic to guarantee that only smaller civs would become members. So they could well compete with larger civs.
If a civ switches out of Republic his Alliance is replaced with Defensive Pact with every other member.

So joining and leaving this EU would be muuuuch easier than the real one but I think it's okay

Do you think it is doable and worth to think of it?

No, definitely not working because sometimes large civs use Republic too. We should also put some restrictions on relationships, so that only pleased or friendly nations can join. Or restrict it to small civs only, based on the number of cities.
But what if you're at war? You could build that building to just stop war? Nah, even if I'm willing to explore the possibility to form this kind of union of civs, we have to think about something else.

 

[<Nexus>]

No, definitely not working because sometimes large civs use Republic too. We should also put some restrictions on relationships, so that only pleased or friendly nations can join.

I wouldn't care of that. For example I wouldn't define Hungary as "Friendly" with its neighbors, yet Hungary has joined the EU.

Or restrict it to small civs only, based on the number of cities.

Yep, that's why I suggested Republic, but I didn't mean it as the only solution.

But what if you're at war? You could build that building to just stop war?

Ooookay... that's a serious concern I didn't think of

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

I think a better way to approach the problem might be to rework Permanent Alliance and allow more than 2 civs in it, and possibly allow to split a Permanent Alliance under some conditions.
Also, another problem with your proposal is that there might be only one union.

 

[<Nexus>]

I think a better way to approach the problem might be to rework Permanent Alliance and allow more than 2 civs in it, and possibly allow to split a Permanent Alliance under some conditions.

If you find that easier to do...

Also, another problem with your proposal is that there might be only one union.

Yes, if you consider it a problem. Otherwise, if there was only one big union, it would guarantee that large civs could not steamroll over small ones.

Any way, just brainstorming as always

 

[crossclayton]

Could it not be designed in the same way as vassal states?

EG.

Depending on your relationship, you could ask a fellow nation to join your "Coalition".
They would join up if they like you enough. This would prevent 1 big union forming and breaking the game.

This in turn would kick in relationship penalties from other civs if you start letting ppl they dont like join your "Coalition".

If 1 member wants to go to declare war, there would need to be a vote from the members, same voting system for sanctions, breaking contact etc.

For new nations joining, after you have your first member, then a vote would also need to happen to allow the next applicant in.

In short, it would just be a modern day version of vassal states except war, trade, new members are voted on rather than just the "vassalee" making all the big decisions.

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

Way too complicate to create a voting system. Current voting systems for AP and UN are already tricky parts of the code, so I'm very reluctant to code something similar.
But I've already been able to create multi-civs alliance (I've tested a 3 civs alliance, but it should work with more too).What I need to do now is to put some restrictions on alliance creation and a way to break alliances under some conditions, for example when a member is Furious toward another member.

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

OK, I'm trying some new changes I haven't published yet and it looks like it's working as intended: I can leave things as they are for medium sized and big civs, but I've boosted small civs willingness to unite into an alliance. So far I've got a 4 civs alliance (5+7+1+1 cities + a 3 cities vassal, playing with revolution on a large map, 25-30 civs currently in game, up to 18 cities for the biggest civ). It could be good enough to let them survive longer through the later eras. Now the question is: should Permanent Alliances be made breakable? I think so, although there should be a minimum duration limit. Under what conditions? I'm open to suggestions.

 

[thegreekweegee]

I'm all for permanent alliances being breakable, myself. Especially with more than 2 civs being able to band together as an alliance. My only suggestion is to force a nation to stay in an alliance for the usual 16 turn period open borders and resources (among other things) work by.

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

I'm all for permanent alliances being breakable, myself. Especially with more than 2 civs being able to band together as an alliance. My only suggestion is to force a nation to stay in an alliance for the usual 16 turn period open borders and resources (among other things) work by.

I was actually thinking about a longer period. Alliances are permanent now, and this is because you could exploit them otherwise. Since when you join an alliance you share all the techs between members, I wouldn't like the idea of switching in and out of permanent alliances to steal techs. I know PA come pretty late, around 2/3 of the game, but I was thinking more of 60 turns on Blitz, which makes 120 on normal and 180 on epic. If you want to switch in and out, you should not be able to do it more than 2-3 times.

 

[IPEX-731BA5DD06]

I agree, make them breakable.

An example I had on one game, I attacked a 2 Civ Alliance, I reduced one member down to one or two cities, which I eventually wiped out, but they REMAINED as being listed on the alliance. And proceeded to re-appear with revolutions.

Definitely have a minimum term, so you don't have civ's jumping in and out of alliances every 5 turns.

Also should be an attitude modifier, that then more unhappy they are, the more likely they are to break or vote a member OUT of an alliance.

Such as religion, wars, past events (city destruction etc)

 

[<Nexus>]

I was actually thinking about a longer period. Alliances are permanent now, and this is because you could exploit them otherwise. Since when you join an alliance you share all the techs between members, I wouldn't like the idea of switching in and out of permanent alliances to steal techs. I know PA come pretty late, around 2/3 of the game, but I was thinking more of 60 turns on Blitz, which makes 120 on normal and 180 on epic. If you want to switch in and out, you should not be able to do it more than 2-3 times.

Awesome!

I think Alliances should also increase maintenance for members, so it wouldn't be so desirable for large civs.

 

[thegreekweegee]

I was actually thinking about a longer period. Alliances are permanent now, and this is because you could exploit them otherwise. Since when you join an alliance you share all the techs between members, I wouldn't like the idea of switching in and out of permanent alliances to steal techs. I know PA come pretty late, around 2/3 of the game, but I was thinking more of 60 turns on Blitz, which makes 120 on normal and 180 on epic. If you want to switch in and out, you should not be able to do it more than 2-3 times.

Sounds reasonable. Go for it!

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

There's something I haven't considered about breaking an alliance. Spaceship is a Team Project. I've never tested it but it should mean that different civs build the same spaceship. So what happens to the spaceship if you break the alliance? Right now you can't do it, but I can't imagine the nightmare of coding each civ to get its own spaceship parts, which would be absurd by the way. So my idea is that when you break an alliance every spaceship part should be scrapped, same as happens when you lose your capital after you've launched the spaceship. If someone can come up with another feasible suggestion, I'm all ears.

 

[IPEX-731BA5DD06]

can you code it, so the space ship is an "Alliance build", that way if a civ leave the alliance, they start again from Zero.

Now I've created the problem of late alliance joiners, who free ride their way to the space ship victory.

Maybe code in, once an alliance has started on space ship, they can't accept new members

 

[<Nexus>]

There's something I haven't considered about breaking an alliance. Spaceship is a Team Project. I've never tested it but it should mean that different civs build the same spaceship. So what happens to the spaceship if you break the alliance? Right now you can't do it, but I can't imagine the nightmare of coding each civ to get its own spaceship parts, which would be absurd by the way. So my idea is that when you break an alliance every spaceship part should be scrapped, same as happens when you lose your capital after you've launched the spaceship. If someone can come up with another feasible suggestion, I'm all ears.

Maybe... Building a spaceship part could add a period of turns that make the alliance un-breakable? So if a team is building a spaceship and they keep building the parts, technically no one could quit.

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

Maybe... Building a spaceship part could add a period of turns that make the alliance un-breakable? So if a team is building a spaceship and they keep building the parts, technically no one could quit.

Well, this could be exploited by players to keep an alliance even if there's no interest in building a spaceship. And if you build a couple of parts and you prolong the unbreakability of PA of some turns and then you stop building it? Again, what happens to those parts? You might not be interested in building a spaceship anymore but your ally might still be.

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

can you code it, so the space ship is an "Alliance build", that way if a civ leave the alliance, they start again from Zero.

Now I've created the problem of late alliance joiners, who free ride their way to the space ship victory.

Maybe code in, once an alliance has started on space ship, they can't accept new members

Not sure I can do them start again from zero. Late alliance joiners is not a real problem, it happens on default BTS too and if they're able to do it, it's fine with me. I could code that once spaceship is started, no one can join an alliance. But I'm not sure it's worth it and not sure if I like the idea.
I wait for some more opinions. Vokarya, what do you think?

 

[<Nexus>]

Not sure I can do them start again from zero. Late alliance joiners is not a real problem, it happens on default BTS too and if they're able to do it, it's fine with me. I could code that once spaceship is started, no one can join an alliance. But I'm not sure it's worth it and not sure if I like the idea.

Me either.

Well, this could be exploited by players to keep an alliance even if there's no interest in building a spaceship. And if you build a couple of parts and you prolong the unbreakability of PA of some turns and then you stop building it? Again, what happens to those parts? You might not be interested in building a spaceship anymore but your ally might still be.

I think that getting spaceship parts for free is a bigger problem and exploitation we want to avoid more than having a way to make an alliance permanent - just as it is right now
My idea was that finishing a spaceship part would give some turns of non-breakability, not just building one in a useless backwater city that takes 55267 turns to finish.
If the human player keeps building (and finishing) s.s. parts - even for the sake of exploitation to keep up the alliance - finally he will end up in finishing the project and win the game with his allies

 

[Vokarya]

Not sure I can do them start again from zero. Late alliance joiners is not a real problem, it happens on default BTS too and if they're able to do it, it's fine with me. I could code that once spaceship is started, no one can join an alliance. But I'm not sure it's worth it and not sure if I like the idea.
I wait for some more opinions. Vokarya, what do you think?

I've been watching this discussion but I didn't think I really had anything to contribute. Now that you're asking, I think I prefer the idea of exiting an alliance forces you to restart your spaceship. I definitely think that the decision to exit an alliance should be the decision of the player exiting and not allow a way to remove another player from an alliance. Then, if a player exits, the remaining alliance would keep all team projects. It's not just spaceship parts -- Space Program and anti-nuke projects are team projects too.