Vertico said:Hello Creators of this great mod.
I have one question regarding diplomacy.
Civilization itself improved a lot with many different aspects but diplomacy stayed almost the same - very poor. I was shocked, because Infogrames in meantime made Master of Orion III, with the best diplomacy options I ever seen in strategic games civ-like. Why not to implement some good and tested ideas from MoO? What we have now?
contact
open borders
defensive pact (only when not at any war)
permanet alliance (can be sign once and forever)
What about multinational alliances (like NATO, Warsaw Pact), non-agresion pacts, embargo on given resources, economic agreements, etc.
Next thin is United Nations, when few resolutions can be discussed.
Why not to add some more like:
declaring war to one chosen civilisation
declaring embargo on specific resource to chosen civilisation
declaring cease any relationships with chosen civilization
disarmament agreements
ultimatum to stop war between two civs
etc.
Is it possible in general with current code of the game?
WarKirby said:Patch.
Today?
WarKirby
purger30 said:Houman, Mexico
I saw that you have incomporated Dale's MAD mod in your patch.
Have you reworked that mod in a way that nuke dont destroy the whole city? Destroying a whole city is a very bad idea that ruins the game. I allways turn off raize city option in my games beacuse I hate to loose wonders from game. Nuclear war should cripple national economy and production base (of course in CIV game, not in reality) and not erase the map...
Is there be a tactical nuclear mislle in your mod?
Regards
Yes I like the idea of chemical weapons, because as I pointed out in an earlier post about Iraq and its supposedly hidden nukes; it takes billions of dollars of infrastructure. And it is not something that you can cobble together in your backyard. It is one thing to have the theoretical knowledge to build nuclear weapons; you also need a massive industrial base with skilled technicians to bring it off. So chemical weapons would be a good addition.Hian the Frog said:@ purger30,
Even if i agree with you about the lost of wonders when a city is razed, i can really tell you that a nuke attack would destroy most of them. Imagine.... The Eiffel Tower. I don't know if you ever saw it, but (as a Frenchmen) i can tell you that this wonder made of iron (not steel) would be easily destroyed, either by the powerfull winds created by the explosion or by the hot fire ball that would melt the tons of iron... Most other wonders would also be destroyed.
About mass destruction weapons, i would rather like to add what we call in France the "weapons of the poor": Chemical Weapons. Because Uranium 238 and Plutonium 235 are nearly impossible to trade, to transform,.... most of the less advanced (but rich enough) countries try to built this kind of mass destruction weapons.
For game purpose, it could a weapon that only affect pop and units in the same radius than a nuclear one, and with a slighter less diplomatic malus. Its range could be important but not all around the planet (Chemicals products don't like cold temparatures of high atmosphere). About techs, Chemistry would be needed at least, and either assembly line or artillery (remember German's use of chemical weapon by artillery bullets in WW I ).
What do you think of that, guys ?
The Frog
Ankenaton said:Yes I like the idea of chemical weapons, because as I pointed out in an earlier post about Iraq and its supposedly hidden nukes; it takes billions of dollars of infrastructure. And it is not something that you can cobble together in your backyard. It is one thing to have the theoretical knowledge to build nuclear weapons; you also need a massive industrial base with skilled technicians to bring it off. So chemical weapons would be a good addition.