One of the things that really really made me happy when I saw the C3C press release was the locked alliances feature.
I would like to discuss some of the things I'd like to see and hope people will share theirs and discuss the merits of the ideas presented.
Now, we know that currently, there are only really two types of alliances both of which are bilateral (two party agreements) I do believe however there has been some code put in for the AI so that it is not uncommon for splits to occur where two groups of nations, through two-party agreements between the members of the groups are essentially engaged in a larger scale war.
Locked alliances promises to add to this by creating formal structures where a group of nations are bound together in a common cause. This is why that while it is still early, I am hoping some of the ideas here are heard and if Breakaway/Firaxis is going in some other direction, it may be rectified in time.
Things I don't really want
1) Paying lip service to locked alliances by providing
a) A glorified MPP where instead of 2 countries you have a large multi country MPP. This is lame in itself (but is naturally a basic requirement for any alliance.)
b) Again, a lack of features, and or simply extending existing features already in Civ3 to multiple parties and slap a new name on it. Locked alliances may mean an automatic ROP agreement as well. But MPP + ROP doesn't make a locked alliance .
This leads me to a few suggestions
1) Common use of resources - It has been popular in many web based turn based strategy games (Planetarion etc.) to have alliances where players contribute ships, money, etc. to the alliance. The money is used as a kind of slush fund to pay for alliance upkeep and to aid members (this way there is no bickering about who pays what share when Member X is hit with a disaster). Ships/units tagged as alliance use can be moved by the alliance leaders.
1b) This related to part 1. Each alliance should be able to keep a separate force consisting of the contributions of member nations. This army will act to augment the standing armies of each Civ and gives the alliance flexibility so that it can use its forces to fight limited wars, and or enforce certain actions without member nations declaring war on anybody. The size of this force can be capped at say 20 units to prevent abuse.
2) Common use of ports and roads. Pretty Straightforward. A Civ in an alliance treat the roads and ports of alliance members like their own. So that their ships can heal in a friendly port, they can move troops to friendly ports and load them to transports.
3) Cease fire for members leaving. - The current penalties for ROP rape was designed as a direct response to penalize players who use ROP agreements as a tool to knock out an AI opponent. Not that it stops the hardcore warmongers, but certainly many of us think twice now. With alliance members sharing such strong sharing of resources, leaving the alliance entail a period of cease fire where no one can attack the Civ and all foreign units must be removed from the territory.
4) Give us more diplomatic options for locked alliances.
Alliance A may intervene in non-aligned Civ X, Alliance B may also intervence and well.. Civ X now has to decide who to side with and ask for help and who to side with since Civ X is a potential future member of either allaiance A, B or even C or D.
There should also be new dialogue items specifically for alliance use. Offering an alliance member a luxury for free should be treated somewhat differently than offering a non aligned member a luxury/resource for free. The former is seem more as a perk (a brother helping a brother). The latter is a more direct form of aid.
Between members, aid options should be specified and actions appreciated and remembered. Currently you can "Technically" (and I use that word strictly) aid an AI ally by giving them gold, techs, luxuruies and resources and even giving them back the cities they lost, but the AI treats it as any other gift, nothing special, and it is not uncommon to have the same AI get annoyed with you very soon after. That's not to say relationships shouldn't change, it's just highly jarring to see a Civ you helped so much turn on you so quickly. Perhaps the addition of a new relationship slider (in addition to attitude and reputation) to keep track of trading/alliance relationships is needed to rectify this.
Also Unit trading is probably on a lot of people's list. This should be highly restricted to avoid abuse.
Naturally the AI should be able to perform actions such as unit trading and sending aid. I've noted in so many other posts that it is a big step back if the developers have to resort to sheer trickery to give human players options they know the AI can't use and will never use. It's a way to quickly add in featurers without restructuring the game to accomodate it. It breaks the feeling or perhaps illusion of equality and fairness when it comes to the rules that matter Civ III.
I'll add more as I think of them.
Talk away.
I would like to discuss some of the things I'd like to see and hope people will share theirs and discuss the merits of the ideas presented.
Now, we know that currently, there are only really two types of alliances both of which are bilateral (two party agreements) I do believe however there has been some code put in for the AI so that it is not uncommon for splits to occur where two groups of nations, through two-party agreements between the members of the groups are essentially engaged in a larger scale war.
Locked alliances promises to add to this by creating formal structures where a group of nations are bound together in a common cause. This is why that while it is still early, I am hoping some of the ideas here are heard and if Breakaway/Firaxis is going in some other direction, it may be rectified in time.
Things I don't really want
1) Paying lip service to locked alliances by providing
a) A glorified MPP where instead of 2 countries you have a large multi country MPP. This is lame in itself (but is naturally a basic requirement for any alliance.)
b) Again, a lack of features, and or simply extending existing features already in Civ3 to multiple parties and slap a new name on it. Locked alliances may mean an automatic ROP agreement as well. But MPP + ROP doesn't make a locked alliance .
This leads me to a few suggestions
1) Common use of resources - It has been popular in many web based turn based strategy games (Planetarion etc.) to have alliances where players contribute ships, money, etc. to the alliance. The money is used as a kind of slush fund to pay for alliance upkeep and to aid members (this way there is no bickering about who pays what share when Member X is hit with a disaster). Ships/units tagged as alliance use can be moved by the alliance leaders.
1b) This related to part 1. Each alliance should be able to keep a separate force consisting of the contributions of member nations. This army will act to augment the standing armies of each Civ and gives the alliance flexibility so that it can use its forces to fight limited wars, and or enforce certain actions without member nations declaring war on anybody. The size of this force can be capped at say 20 units to prevent abuse.
2) Common use of ports and roads. Pretty Straightforward. A Civ in an alliance treat the roads and ports of alliance members like their own. So that their ships can heal in a friendly port, they can move troops to friendly ports and load them to transports.
3) Cease fire for members leaving. - The current penalties for ROP rape was designed as a direct response to penalize players who use ROP agreements as a tool to knock out an AI opponent. Not that it stops the hardcore warmongers, but certainly many of us think twice now. With alliance members sharing such strong sharing of resources, leaving the alliance entail a period of cease fire where no one can attack the Civ and all foreign units must be removed from the territory.
4) Give us more diplomatic options for locked alliances.
Alliance A may intervene in non-aligned Civ X, Alliance B may also intervence and well.. Civ X now has to decide who to side with and ask for help and who to side with since Civ X is a potential future member of either allaiance A, B or even C or D.
There should also be new dialogue items specifically for alliance use. Offering an alliance member a luxury for free should be treated somewhat differently than offering a non aligned member a luxury/resource for free. The former is seem more as a perk (a brother helping a brother). The latter is a more direct form of aid.
Between members, aid options should be specified and actions appreciated and remembered. Currently you can "Technically" (and I use that word strictly) aid an AI ally by giving them gold, techs, luxuruies and resources and even giving them back the cities they lost, but the AI treats it as any other gift, nothing special, and it is not uncommon to have the same AI get annoyed with you very soon after. That's not to say relationships shouldn't change, it's just highly jarring to see a Civ you helped so much turn on you so quickly. Perhaps the addition of a new relationship slider (in addition to attitude and reputation) to keep track of trading/alliance relationships is needed to rectify this.
Also Unit trading is probably on a lot of people's list. This should be highly restricted to avoid abuse.
Naturally the AI should be able to perform actions such as unit trading and sending aid. I've noted in so many other posts that it is a big step back if the developers have to resort to sheer trickery to give human players options they know the AI can't use and will never use. It's a way to quickly add in featurers without restructuring the game to accomodate it. It breaks the feeling or perhaps illusion of equality and fairness when it comes to the rules that matter Civ III.
I'll add more as I think of them.
Talk away.
