Alliances and Diplomacy are kewl in Civ3. But lets face it... We want more. Civ3 just teases our taste for a full in depth diplomatic world.
First of all what I am suggesting requires changes to other parts also. One in particular is the resources. They must use a stockpiling skeme in order to have effective trade amoungst the alliances.
Alliances (trade or miliatry) should not be limited to civ with civ... But rather Federation with Federation.
The creation of a Federation:
One civilization creates a federation and names it. The creation of this federation can have permanent bi-laws that can never be changed or can easily be cahnged by a vote, depending on the creator. Of course if the creator makes a federation that gives their civilization almost entire soveirgnty the invited civilization will become insulted.
There should certain 'acheivable' (based on technology) modifications to the creation of a federation.
The creation can be broken into 4 base parts,
1. pre-set Bi-Laws
2. Entrance (requirement, payment ect)
3. Anual (requirement, payment ect)
4. Militaristic
1.Pre-set Bi-Laws
The selectable laws come from various acheivments on the technology chart (it would be better to actual have a political chart and tech chart... But thats another story). Such examples could be, Leader voting, Leader power (veto etc), NO-WAR with out vote policy, Military expenditures, Weapons usage, Technology research policy, Members Government Policy...etc etc.. This idea good be brainstormed for weeks.. and still expanded upon.
2. Entrance
This would be like a member entrance fee but is not necessarily limited to resources, tech or anything. This could also be limited in an early game and branched out as more achievements are gained.
In addition this feature should be editable for each invite sent out. It would make no sence to ask for huge amounts of Iron from an Iron deprived nation and why ask for Iron if they are sitting on some Coal
The resources or any dividable item (resource,gold even an amount of units) would then be divided amoungst the current members of the federation (if only you then you reap all the bennifits
) (Keep in mind this could be changed with bi-laws.... It could be the Leader reaps 80% and the rest is divided.. or the determined weak states get all...). Technology could also be a fee. And given to members (or as the bi-law states to whomever reaps the bennefits). Even cities could be given 
A more unique thing would be war. There ofcourse will be great bennifits from joining powerful federations. Picture a federation which has a lock on the Oil industry. They could surely get you to go to war with they long time enemy for a piece of the pie. BUT it should not be a simple declaration of war. War should actually be the 'given' factor. Instead it should be a requirement of taking certain cities, or cutting of certain resources from some civ. And since these tasks can not be done imeadiatly a deadline would be given. And until that time 'temporay membership' would be granted.
3. Anual
I think if you understand the above this part is pretty simple. Ofcourse the cost would be much less but still there. And again the resources or whatever would be divided out according to the Bi-Laws. In addition Anual would cover parts of Military for individual Civs (not covered in part 4).
In addition the time could be a variable scale. So an example could be as follows for a federation of 4 members.
Law: Leader receives 40% of all Anual and Entrance dividable resources
Anual Payment for Civ A (Leader)
10 turns: pay 20 units of High Offence Quality
5 Turns: pay 10 Units of High Deffence Quality
Protection Act (any member receives protection from Civ A, simular to a Mutual Protection pact of the Current civ but only one way)
Anual payment for Civ B (non-leader)
1 turn: Pay 40 Units of Iron
1 turn: Pay 20 Units of Coal
Anual Payment for Civ C (Non-Leader)
1 turn: Pay 20 Units of Iron
1 turn: Pay 70 Gold
Anual Payment for Civ D (nonleader)
25 Turns: pay 5 Units of workers
1 turn: Pay 30 Gold
The result would be,
Civ A (Leader)
25 Turns: Receive 2 Units of Workers
20 Turns: Receive 8 Units of High Offence Quality
10 turns: Receive 4 Units of High Deffence Quality
1 Turn: Receive 24 Units of Iron
1 Turn: Receive 8 Units of Coal
1 Turn: Receive 40 Gold
And for all other members they would get,
Civ A protection
25 Turns: Receive 1 Worker
20 Turns: Receive 4 Units of High Offence Quality
10 turns: Receive 2 Units of High Deffence Quality
1 Turn: Receive 12 Units of Iron
1 Turn: Receive 4 Units of Coal
1 Turn: Receive 20 Gold
Obviously not all civs are getting the same sence they are paying different. This would be due to different joining dates, recourses available, entrance fee (maybe gave lots of tech or no tech)... And of course just friendliness of the civ.
It would be best if these could be voted to be changed. Some resources loose their usefulness throughout the game... So a civ should pay some other membership fee.
4. Militaristic
This part would cover the overall military policy of the Federation. For example protection in case of war. AN extreme could be all declare war if a member is attacked. But such a pact will not likely hold together since the attacker may be involved with a trade in the federation or a member of the federation. Therefore a Federation with such extreme policies would likely not last long.
On the other hand smaller measures could be taken like trade embargo, or ex-communicating.
Or there could be settings of Unit support if being attacked. This topic could also be discussed forever but would evetually need to be capped with certain ideas.
One thing that would be necessary with this section would be foriegn policy. Basically the allowbilty of provoking wars or not.. Or for how long.
Membership
Lastly membership could of course either be voted out, kicked out(leader style), or just quite. In the same sence, entrance could be voted in, Let in (leader style), or maybe forced in.... " Join us or Perrish!"
I guess in summary I think grouped alliances would add a great deal of diplomacy to the game. My suggestions are just that, suggestions, and I am sure the factors of creating a federation could be even better. But we must keep in mind if it is to complex it will never get implimented... And if it is too simple it will not change the diplomatic playing field that much.
Well I hope people will add to my thoughts. One of my first comments posted in these forums
First of all what I am suggesting requires changes to other parts also. One in particular is the resources. They must use a stockpiling skeme in order to have effective trade amoungst the alliances.
Alliances (trade or miliatry) should not be limited to civ with civ... But rather Federation with Federation.
The creation of a Federation:
One civilization creates a federation and names it. The creation of this federation can have permanent bi-laws that can never be changed or can easily be cahnged by a vote, depending on the creator. Of course if the creator makes a federation that gives their civilization almost entire soveirgnty the invited civilization will become insulted.
There should certain 'acheivable' (based on technology) modifications to the creation of a federation.
The creation can be broken into 4 base parts,
1. pre-set Bi-Laws
2. Entrance (requirement, payment ect)
3. Anual (requirement, payment ect)
4. Militaristic
1.Pre-set Bi-Laws
The selectable laws come from various acheivments on the technology chart (it would be better to actual have a political chart and tech chart... But thats another story). Such examples could be, Leader voting, Leader power (veto etc), NO-WAR with out vote policy, Military expenditures, Weapons usage, Technology research policy, Members Government Policy...etc etc.. This idea good be brainstormed for weeks.. and still expanded upon.
2. Entrance
This would be like a member entrance fee but is not necessarily limited to resources, tech or anything. This could also be limited in an early game and branched out as more achievements are gained.
In addition this feature should be editable for each invite sent out. It would make no sence to ask for huge amounts of Iron from an Iron deprived nation and why ask for Iron if they are sitting on some Coal
The resources or any dividable item (resource,gold even an amount of units) would then be divided amoungst the current members of the federation (if only you then you reap all the bennifits
) (Keep in mind this could be changed with bi-laws.... It could be the Leader reaps 80% and the rest is divided.. or the determined weak states get all...). Technology could also be a fee. And given to members (or as the bi-law states to whomever reaps the bennefits). Even cities could be given A more unique thing would be war. There ofcourse will be great bennifits from joining powerful federations. Picture a federation which has a lock on the Oil industry. They could surely get you to go to war with they long time enemy for a piece of the pie. BUT it should not be a simple declaration of war. War should actually be the 'given' factor. Instead it should be a requirement of taking certain cities, or cutting of certain resources from some civ. And since these tasks can not be done imeadiatly a deadline would be given. And until that time 'temporay membership' would be granted.
3. Anual
I think if you understand the above this part is pretty simple. Ofcourse the cost would be much less but still there. And again the resources or whatever would be divided out according to the Bi-Laws. In addition Anual would cover parts of Military for individual Civs (not covered in part 4).
In addition the time could be a variable scale. So an example could be as follows for a federation of 4 members.
Law: Leader receives 40% of all Anual and Entrance dividable resources
Anual Payment for Civ A (Leader)
10 turns: pay 20 units of High Offence Quality
5 Turns: pay 10 Units of High Deffence Quality
Protection Act (any member receives protection from Civ A, simular to a Mutual Protection pact of the Current civ but only one way)
Anual payment for Civ B (non-leader)
1 turn: Pay 40 Units of Iron
1 turn: Pay 20 Units of Coal
Anual Payment for Civ C (Non-Leader)
1 turn: Pay 20 Units of Iron
1 turn: Pay 70 Gold
Anual Payment for Civ D (nonleader)
25 Turns: pay 5 Units of workers
1 turn: Pay 30 Gold
The result would be,
Civ A (Leader)
25 Turns: Receive 2 Units of Workers
20 Turns: Receive 8 Units of High Offence Quality
10 turns: Receive 4 Units of High Deffence Quality
1 Turn: Receive 24 Units of Iron
1 Turn: Receive 8 Units of Coal
1 Turn: Receive 40 Gold
And for all other members they would get,
Civ A protection
25 Turns: Receive 1 Worker
20 Turns: Receive 4 Units of High Offence Quality
10 turns: Receive 2 Units of High Deffence Quality
1 Turn: Receive 12 Units of Iron
1 Turn: Receive 4 Units of Coal
1 Turn: Receive 20 Gold
Obviously not all civs are getting the same sence they are paying different. This would be due to different joining dates, recourses available, entrance fee (maybe gave lots of tech or no tech)... And of course just friendliness of the civ.
It would be best if these could be voted to be changed. Some resources loose their usefulness throughout the game... So a civ should pay some other membership fee.
4. Militaristic
This part would cover the overall military policy of the Federation. For example protection in case of war. AN extreme could be all declare war if a member is attacked. But such a pact will not likely hold together since the attacker may be involved with a trade in the federation or a member of the federation. Therefore a Federation with such extreme policies would likely not last long.
On the other hand smaller measures could be taken like trade embargo, or ex-communicating.
Or there could be settings of Unit support if being attacked. This topic could also be discussed forever but would evetually need to be capped with certain ideas.
One thing that would be necessary with this section would be foriegn policy. Basically the allowbilty of provoking wars or not.. Or for how long.
Membership
Lastly membership could of course either be voted out, kicked out(leader style), or just quite. In the same sence, entrance could be voted in, Let in (leader style), or maybe forced in.... " Join us or Perrish!"
I guess in summary I think grouped alliances would add a great deal of diplomacy to the game. My suggestions are just that, suggestions, and I am sure the factors of creating a federation could be even better. But we must keep in mind if it is to complex it will never get implimented... And if it is too simple it will not change the diplomatic playing field that much.
Well I hope people will add to my thoughts. One of my first comments posted in these forums
