Fix Diplomacy

[sir_schwick]

In my opinion resource quantity tends to go against the simplified resource mechanics of Civ in general. This refers to shields and food and trade as well. Instead, I think resource trade should be automatic, and its so lucrative the only reason to stop trade to others is strategic. Early cities with Iron should be mega-rich, not mega militant. Money always seems better then weapons to a merchant.

 

[BigBirdZ28]

the best kind of game i like to play is modern world COLD WAR. without diplomacy you cant play a cold war.

you need lots & lots of diplomacy in this game, to the extent of having Groups of nations that focus on specific things, like a military alliance (Nato, all nations in this alliance defend each other & can request troops be stationed in their nations, they can use each other's cities ports & transport as well as share intelligence. this also needs a frame work to be able to plan a war (like see how many nations will contribute troops & how many will oppose) )

economic cooperation alliance where trade would be boosted between nations in this alliance

you need to be able to setup enough alliances so that rival poles of power could be established & alliances can fail. also ways to intice nations to defect to your alliance.

 

[sir_schwick]

Trade in general needs to be a lot more lucrative. Right now trade is barely profitable, even in the modern age.

 

[dh_epic]

Sir Schwick,

I think that's an interesting model to pursue... The ruler doesn't actually set up the trades. Your economic system (government) has some impact on when and how trade is conducted, and it happens automatically. And as the ruler, you don't set up the trades, but you stop the ones you don't want. Why wouldn't you want to trade with somebody?

- economic competition: if they're competing with you for the world's leading supplier of lumber, then you might want to raise a tariff on all the exports that come out of your nation towards them

- military competition: if they're trying to acquire a domination victory, depriving them of iron could be very important.

- diplomatic pressure: If you're competing with Civ A for domination or economic victory, and Civ B is a worldwide trade partner of both you and Civ A... then you could tell Civ B "it's them or us -- either you cut off all trade with Civ A, or cut off all trade with us". Hopefully this can help you put more pressure on Civ A -- if Civ B agrees to go along with it.

Not to mention artificially raising / lowering prices, in order to get an advantage on the market.

BigBirdZ28, I think cold war is one of the most compelling aspects of modern history. Yet people complain when they play Civ that the game gets boring by the modern age -- a game that relies on classical models of war and conflict that have already been repeated for thousands of years. I think this should be an important goal, because of how it can improve one of the most impoverished parts of the game.

 

[sir_schwick]

Your right dh, here is some RL examples.

OPEC controlled a vast majority of the world's crude petroleum in the 1970s. They raised prices and hurt the US economy severely.

The US refused to trade Iron and Oil with Japan after they conquered Manchuria for strategic and diplomatic reasons.

The US has leveled trade sanctions against Cuba since soon after Fidel Castro gained control of Cuba.

This system would also lead to possible Tariff Wars. Many times depressions have been prolonged(Smoot-Hawley Tariffs) by tariffs. Many times good economies have been vastly improved by free-trade acts(NAFTA). Also, it could lead to economic alliances, such as NAFTA/FTAA(Free Trade Agreement of the Americas) vs. EU vs. Whatever is coming up in South-east Asia. In terms of game mechanics tariffs would have effects on population. Tariffs in general would increase happiness a little because people see the value of jobs more then lower prices(one big positive vs. lots of little positives). Free trade tends to put someone out of a job here to be employed elsewhere, so it would make more people unhappy.

 

[menwia]

the best kind of game i like to play is modern world COLD WAR. without diplomacy you cant play a cold war.

you need lots & lots of diplomacy in this game, to the extent of having Groups of nations that focus on specific things, like a military alliance (Nato, all nations in this alliance defend each other & can request troops be stationed in their nations, they can use each other's cities ports & transport as well as share intelligence. this also needs a frame work to be able to plan a war (like see how many nations will contribute troops & how many will oppose) )

economic cooperation alliance where trade would be boosted between nations in this alliance

you need to be able to setup enough alliances so that rival poles of power could be established & alliances can fail. also ways to intice nations to defect to your alliance.

I think that's a really good idea - it could be argued that that already exists in Civ3 - with one nation triggering the allaince of another and so on. But I think your right - one should be able to get into Alliance Pacts - what ever their basis is - one shoudl be able to make an Alliance Pact as well as a Trade pact eg, NAFTA - EU - OPEC and so on and so on.

 

[dh_epic]

Sir Schwick -- you and I agree. But my worry is that most people will hear about that and say "man, I don't want to have to regulate trade to win". Then you get stuck in the same old boring "build the best unit as much as possible and rush a city". To me, this trade model can be implemented simply and effectively, and it would be possible to win with minimal tinkering at the lowest levels.

Menwia, I think the difference between Civ 3 and what you're talking about is an element of multi-lateralism. Pacts that encompass more than one person. Also, the pacts have to be much more important -- in Civ 3 you can go the entire game without one pact. In reality, if you did that, you'd be quickly pushed off the edge of the world, so to speak.

 

[sir_schwick]

I think trade could be simply regulated through an Economic Advisor. That screen would look a lot like the current Foreign Advisor screen, i.e. a web of lines and portraits(no more animated leader heads). Between each power would be a line for their trade relationship, with barriers listed. You would also see special colored extra lines for FTAs(since they would be formal agreements). Of course any of these deals can be made on a multi-lateral basis.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trade Barriers

You could simply set the barrier for trade for a nation. All tariffs are on imports and are recieved by the importer. Also, each trade(the culumulative export from one nation to another) would be the base amount for determining how much of whatever is earned.

Open - The importer earns 100% the base amount in trade arrows(applied to the national city, which is a made up entity to spread the percentages against, happy faces would be distributed where needed then to where they would make WTLKD.). The exporter earns 100% base in gold and 100% base in trade arrows.

Light Tariffs - The importer earns 50% the base amount in trade arrows and 50% in gold. The exporter earns 75% the base in gold and 75% the base in trade arrows.

Heavy Tariffs - The importer earns 100% the base in gold. The exporter earns 50% the base in gold and 50% the base in trade arrows.

Restricted(Specific) - You can specify which resources can be exported.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The round system effect of trade barriers are this. Suppose Civ A and Civ B have approx. the same base of trade.

With Open

• Tariffs = 100% Trade Arrows

• Exports = 100% Trade Arrows and 100% Gold

• Total = 200% Trade Arrows and 100% Gold

With Light Tariffs

• Tariffs = 50% Trade Arrows and 50% Gold

• Exports = 75% Trade Arrows and 75% Gold

• Total = 125% Trade Arrows and 125% Gold

With Heavy Tariffs

• Tariffs = 100% Gold

• Exports = 50% Trade Arrows and 50% Gold

• Total = 50% Trade Arrows and 150% Gold

This analysis shows that free-trade overall will benefit more, but that a country trying to make moeny off of heavy tariffs will usually be answered. The only times you would see non-paralell policy would be in a situation similair to mercantilism. The mercantil power has Heavy Tariffs on products from the oppressed power. The oppressed power has Open so the mercantil power earns the most gold and keeps the oppressed power poorer.

------------------------------------------------------------

These are not complicated commands and would add a lot to cooperation, considering you coudl generate a lot of gold and reserach from seemingly building.

 

[menwia]

agreed dh - I thnk there should be more pacts, and their relevance in the game would be a much more important factor.

You could have a Pact Victory - the naming is wrong but you get what I mean.

About the trade model/diplomatic model your suggesting, some form of tarrifs or free trade mechanism would have to used, especially if you were to use Econonmic/Trading Pacts.

Just one thought though, to have pacts you would have Military Pacts/Economic Pacts and if Relgion is implemented - Religous Pacts. The only thing that concerns me at this point - is I'm thinking would it negate the possiblity of you being in a differnt Pact if you were in One Pact. Eg, could you be in a different economic pact if you were in a military pact? Or would the nations have to all be in the same pacts together? I can't get my words around this, its too early for me - but I hopey you can get the general thrust of my point.

 

[dh_epic]

I think I get your point. Yeah, you could be in multiple, overlapping, but independent pacts. The USA is a part of NATO and NAFTA -- one military, one trade, and both with semi-different nations. And if (in the unlikely event) one alliance is broken due to trechery or perhaps another competing alliance, then there would have to be a prioritization of which alliance takes precedence. Civ does this already, kind of, though. If you're allied with two different AIs who attack each other, you ally with the one who gets attacked first.

Sir Schwick, I think you've got the general sense. Would that pertain to all resources, or individual resources? Obviously there's benefits to more detail, but at the expense of good interface. Micromanagement anyone? Curious as to your thoughts...

 

[sir_schwick]

My thought is that Advanced Trade management should be an option rather then the setting. Most players will not care enough to manage trade barriers on each individual resource. You coudl even be in multiple alliance of the same group. The US belongs to both NAFTA, CFTA, the Uruguay-Round, the WTO(UN of economies), and soon the FTAA(Free Trade Agreement of the Americas). Maybe if you wanted to get picky about resources, you could pull up 'advanced options' and pick whether to restrict exports of STrategic, Luxury, or general goods(remember, your citiznes need food as much as fur).

 

[rupertslander]

Agreements should not be rigidly set to 20 turns - the length should be negotiable. Also, MPPs should be eliminated (I would never, ever EVER sign one) and merged with alliances, which should be multilateral and should be allowed in peacetime as well as in war (NATO, anyone?).

There should be two types of alliances:

- An alliance with a specific "leader" - this "leader" - probably the most powerful civ of the alliance, would have the authority to unilaterally invite new members, declare war and make peace on behalf of the whole alliance.

- A "co-operative" alliance - Declarations of war and invitations for new members would have to be made by the alliance as a whole, but if one member was to be attacked the other members would be expected (but not absolutely required) to join the war. Any member could open peace negotiations, but all members (or perhaps a majority) would have to agree to any peace treaty - separate agreements would still be a big hit on rep.

There would be no more MPPs (woo-hoo!) but if your alliance partner was attacked you would still be expected to declare war - if you don't you would be out of the alliance and it would be a big hit on rep.

ALSO: Bring back a measure overall reputation like what existed in Civ2 or maybe like what EU2 has.

 

[sir_schwick]

Actually I thought the seperation of alliance against a person and alliance against attack(MPP) was a move int he right direction;. You should be able to have 'military cooperative' where you can station your troops in 'mc' cities and use 'mc' transport facitlities.

 

[dh_epic]

I think bilateral agreements still make sense (like mutual protection pact). But multilateral agreements are important, too, and it allows the game to naturally scale up into a global-multilateral group (like the United Nations).

I'm not sure if I'd like your compliance with the agreements to be optional, though. That would be just one more thing that a human player could exploit -- a treaty they make up to benefit them, and when it doesn't benefit them, they don't honor it. I know it's semi-realistic, but I think it would be a gameplay disaster.