Forcing Other Civs to Sign Peace

[AndrewH]

I was playing today, as the Scandinavians. I was by far the strongest nation. I was at war with aztecs. I had a military alliance with the Iroqious ( they kinda blew, they were in the middle of us tho). After taking about 3 or 4 aztec cities i call it quits. But Aztecs are starting to overrun the Iroquois. I surely would'nt want the Aztecs border me. So in Civ 4, i wish you could demand another civ ( In this case Aztecs ) to sign a peace treaty with another civ that they are warring with. ( Iriq )

If anyone else thinks that this is a good idea please tell me. Or bad, whatever.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

This issue has been raised on a number of occasions, and I get the strong sense that this is one of THE most missed features from SMAC (along with Vassalage). I can honestly say that I DEFINITELY feel it should be in Civ4.
Anyway, if you check out this thread:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=84754

You may well find some discussion on this very subject !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Luthor_Saxburg]

So in Civ 4, i wish you could demand another civ ( In this case Aztecs ) to sign a peace treaty with another civ that they are warring with. ( Iriq )

If anyone else thinks that this is a good idea please tell me. Or bad, whatever.

I think it's a MUST! Global alliances (NATO, Warsaw Pact) , Global pressure (forcing a civ to be at peace with other civ even if you are not at war), Global agreements (treaty to not have nuclear or biological weapons).

My opinion is that it shouldn't be available right from start, but certainly in more advanced eras.

 

[Justy]

Count me in on this one. One of the options your nation should have is the ability to exert political pressure. It could be done in the ability to threaten war, sanctions, cruise missile or tact nuke strikes, withdrawal of ambassadors, etc.

My biggest hope for Civ4 would be a major expansion of politics and diplomacy.

 

[dh_epic]

I think it's a good idea, but I also worry that it's only slightly more useful than a trade embargo. Obviously keeping a buffer between you and somebody else is helpful.

But otherwise you really end up with a few sentimental players who want peace for the sake of peace ... and it doesn't help them in the long run. It's strictly for "Role Playing".

I would go a step further... you're allowed to negotiate a peace treaty between two nations, as an outside party. And under certain circumstances, if it's done fairly and altruistically, it counts towards YOUR victory.

Suddenly you have two forces in the game competing -- those who make war, and those who make peace. Who will achieve victory first? The Dominator, or the Peacemaker?

 

[Lockesdonkey]

This issue has been raised on a number of occasions, and I get the strong sense that this is one of THE most missed features from SMAC (along with Vassalage). I can honestly say that I DEFINITELY feel it should be in Civ4.
Anyway, if you check out this thread:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=84754

You may well find some discussion on this very subject !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

True, but not exclusively.

And BTW, Aussie_Lurker, why don't you make that

"Yours,
Aussie_Lurker"

thing be your sig?

Best,
TheDonkey

 

[GR8Madmax]

Count me in also. I'm all for making this part of the game better as it's really bad in Civ3.

 

[FenrysWulf]

A similar demand I'd like to make is when a Civ is at war with you, and there is a city between you two that is letting them send their forces through their territory to attack you, that middle civ should be accountable somehow. Like you should be able to demand that they stop letting that civ send their units through their territory to attack you.