More options for diplomacy

[onedreamer]

I don't like much unit-trading.


I would like to see a SMAC diplomacy option that never made it into Civ. It's already there, made by Firaxis ^^
With this option you could ask some Civ to stop waging war against another Civ (a friendly Civ for you).

 

[onedreamer]

The developers should play a game or two of GalCiv. Its diplomacy is WAY ahead of Civ. You could give away units for the other race to use in a battle against a third party - so you could in effect be fighting a war without declaring a war. It also had this idea, that other Civs would not want to declare a war to you if they were trading with you (now the AI may start a war and lose two or three luxuries and gpt in the process, which is pure madness). They also didn't "gang up" against the human player. And, of course, they attacked the weaker civs and licked the rear end of the stronger ones - in Civ I have NEVER seen any civ no matter how small grovel before me, decking me with gifts because I was the true superpower.

All in all, I think that diplomacy is the one part of Civ that is in most desperate need of re-thinking..

I like all of this except the first part... again too similar to unit-trading. Why a civilization should be allowed to actively take part in a war without declaring war ? I don't think this should happen.

 

[searcheagle]

Cause it will make the game more interesting. And supply one side with arms, but not the other, should be an offense where the supplier can also be attacked (with a reduced rep hit), if they are caught.

 

[Spatula]

I've already put my thoughts on this in a more recent thread. Don't see the point in dragging up in an older one (theoretically more difficult to find)

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Absolutely SPOT ON Searcheagle. Its about being able to play a 'puppet-master' style game, where you might be secure enough to not have to go to war yourself, but wish to keep your closer rivals at bay by siccing other nations, big and small against them, and by supplying them arms in order to do so. Of course, as Searcheagle said, if you get CAUGHT in the act, then you should suffer a MAJOR hit to your international reputation-even more so if you are caught trading to multiple sides at once!! This could lead to that war with your rivals, which you were so desperately trying to avoid !
Of course, in real life, larger powers in history have often traded arms, and even mercenaries, to other nations in return for money, resources or other considerations!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[von Bismarck]

@searcheagle:
The way it is said certianly was not perfect and i just wanted to give some examples of what kind those reports should be!

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

On the 'Intelligence' side of the coin, I would like to see it work like this:

1) You have a number of structures which produce 'Intelligence Points' (IPs) every turn. The IP's produced can also be boosted by assigning more money to your foreign affairs budget!

2) In your Foreign Advisor Screen, you can 'divvy up' your intelligence points into 'Domestic/Internal Security'; 'Espionage' and 'Sabotage'. You can, if you wish, further divide these points up into Economic, Military, Scientific, Civil/Cultural. If you don't, then you will get an even mix of targets for your 'undercover' activities.

3) In this same screen, you can also adjust the % of your intelligence points you wish to focus on each nation. Of course, you have to have had some prior contact with this nation in order to do so!

4) These overall % allocations determine both the FREQUENCY and the chance for success of 'undercover' missions against other nations. If you have embassies and or trade with those nations, then the chance of success against that specific nation is improved.

5) When your tech and/or your IP's reach certain thresholds, you will recieve the ability to perform additional-very nasty/subversive-activities. These include counterintelligence, assassinating Great Leaders, conducting bioterrorism, inciting civil-wars/rebellions and planting of nuclear devices. Not sure how it would work-either (a) your intelligence chief advises you of opportunities to conduct such operations or (b) you have buttons for these missions which become usable at the appropriate time. Either way, it will cost money out of your treasury, and success will STILL depend on your IP's.

6) All other covert operations attempts will occur automatically, with your intelligence chief/foreign advisor advising you of success or failure-and what repurcussions this might have on future international relations.

If anyone would like an 'in-game' example of how I envisage this working, then please let me know!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[searcheagle]

I like it. It is simple system, with lots of options. It is similar to what I had envisioned! It balances computer automation and with user controls.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Thanks for that, Searcheagle, I can't take all the credit for it though! This is a variation of the model used in 'Birth of the Federation'. In that you generated IP's and allocated them to various covert operations tasks. The rest was completely automated-simply telling you when you had either performed a covert action or when you had suffered one (though you didn't ALWAYS know if something was a genuine accident or an act of sabotage !)
I have altered it a little so that there is just a tiny bit less automation involved, mostly in the form of choosing particular nasty forms of covert operations! Other non-automated elements could be choosing who to 'pin the blame on' for your covert operations (eg, the French blow up a German power plant, and leave behind evidence of English involvement-thus potentially causing an international incident !) and choosing whether to expel a given spy, or simply feed him false information !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[von Bismarck]

One thing though: wouldn't it be more realistic if you're intelligence data is somewhat outdated like 6 turns in ancient times (bad traveling), 5 turns in medieval times (traveling is getting better), 2 turns in the industrial age (long live the railroad and telegraphs), and only one turn or intstantly in modern times (the internet, secure telephones)!?

 

[searcheagle]

One more thing while we are talking about espionage and international incidents. Finding a spy should give us a chance to right then and there declare war. That would also reduce our rep hits.

 

[von Bismarck]

However, in reality war is not declared because of an espionage incident. I did not find that too realistic in Civ 3. Stealing plans or such is regular spy business, if you may call it that way. But that changes in case of assassination or like poisoning water and such like.

I found it ridiculous to be declared war because I tried to expose an enemy spy. That is just regular counter-intelligence work...

 

[searcheagle]

the option should still be there.

declaring war because of a discovered spy might be overdoing it, but what if a nuke was planted in your capital. would you still consider that just "regular intelligence work" ?

when a intel job is discovered, you have the option to:
1. ignore it
2. strongly warn the country not to repeat it, privately
3. strongly warn the country not to repeat it, publicly
4. sanctions (either a new element or continuation of an old one)
5. war

 

[von Bismarck]

but what if a nuke was planted in your capital. would you still consider that just "regular intelligence work" ?

I said something about that, did i not:
"But that changes in case of assassination or like poisoning water and such like."

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hey guys. Here is some 'in-game' examples to answer some of your questions regarding intelligence-especially the one about false or outdated intelligence.
Please note that all numbers are for illustrative purposes only!
Lets say that 5 IP's=a 1% chance of a successful espionage. It is the Late-Classical age, and the English have 800 IP's accumulated, of which they have allocated a final amount of 10% (or 80 IP's) to espionage against Germany. This means that they have a 16% chance of a successful espionage mission against Germany. Now, this means that Englands espionage attempts against Germany will be both (a) infrequent and (b) prone to failure-how they fail, though, will vary from attempt to attempt. Sometimes it will just be a 'couldn't find anything', othertimes it will be a 'caught in the act' and sometimes it will be 'wrong/outdated' info. Getting back to the above example, say the RNG determines that the most recent espionage attempt was a failure, but that it was an 'outdated info' failure. In your messages for that turn, your Intelligence Advisor informs you that spies have revealed that Germany is at war with France.
In an attempt to curry favour with France, therefore, England mobilises a small force to take a German city which lies on the German/French border. It will then hand the city over to France as a 'gift'. However, what the player doesn't know is that France and Germany WERE at war, around 8 turns ago, but are now in an MPP. Thus, when England attacks Germany based on this outdated intelligence, they find themselves at war with both Germany AND France!!! The dangers of false intelligence I guess!!
If England were caught spying on Germany, they could have the option of expelling said spy OR, if they have sufficient IP's devoted to Domestic Intelligence, they could feed the spy deliberately false information! The spies would still have a chance of gathering real info, but will also often get wrong info courtesy of German counterintelligence.
Of course, Germany could opt to go to war over the spying incident. Though this would still carry a strong rep-hit, said hit would not be as great as merely going to war for no reason-and would probably carry a lesser war weariness penalty in the first few turns.
Of course, if the English were caught in the act of SABOTAGE, then Germany could go to war with little or no rep-hit, and a reasonably long respite from war weariness effects!

Anyway, hope that clears up some issues on my preferred intelligence model!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[von Bismarck]

@Aussie_Lurker:
I find that too complicated...

 

[Spatula]

Me too.....

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

What's complicated guys? Yes its COMPLEX, but not COMPLICATED (and YES there is a difference !)

The only MAJOR decision the player needs to make, in my model, is how they want to 'divvy up' their intelligence points.
Then, every so often, they will also be given other decisions to make, such as:

(a) Do they REALLY want to perform an especially insidious act of sabotage?

(b) If they know of a foreign agent in their midst, do they wish to expel him or feed him false intelligence?

(c) If they are about to commit an act of sabotage, do they wish to pin the blame on another nation?

Every other aspect of my model is determined by the computer-in a sort of 'set and forget' system. These aspects include:

(a) How often are specific missions performed (based on the IP's allocated).

(b) Is the mission a success or failure and, if the latter, are your agents caught or merely unsuccessful (Based on your IP's versus the IP's allocated to 'Internal Security' by the target nation).

(c) If an act of sabotage is commited against you, do you catch them in the act, catch them AFTER the act, or find any evidence of who was behind it (based on your allocation of IP's to Internal Security)

The coming together of the player controlled and computer controlled elements would all be summarised in a succinct 'report' from your Intelligence Advisor. Whether you choose to believe whats in those reports is entirely YOUR decision, as the player.

Trust me, guys, this model DOES work very successfully-even against AI opponents-as I have successfully sent rival nations to war, in Birth of the Federation, on the basis of 'evidence' planted at the scene of my acts of sabotage ! It is also VERY simple to use and understand!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Albow]

as always Aussie, you have great ideas ... I so hope Civ 4 will have a half-decent diplo/spying area!

hmm, perhaps if we gather enoght IPs we could get an agent into Firaxis and MAKE them do it ... muhahahahaa

 

[Spatula]

I just don't really like the idea of IP. It smacks of micromanagement - you'd need to think about how many to dedicate to a specific task, what would be the best way to distribute them etc.

Slight off-topic: I know 'guys' is a collective term for many males. But does it still apply to groups of mixed gender? I'm thinking about 'Ils' in French - applies to many boys, or many boys and girls, or a group of one gender that is unknown.