Mostly Diplomacy Suggestions

Howitzer

Chieftain
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
95
Location
Greek Empire
Hi people, I have a few suggestions :D I'm not into programming, modding, developing therefore not sure if it can be materialized but what the heck :D

1)Expand permanent alliences..not just two countries..anyone..
2)Demand Destruction of units...(eg we demand you destroy your ICBMs or else we'll attack)
3)We demand you stop building...(eg stop building spaceship components)
4)We demand you stop researching...(eg stop researcing gunpowder)
5)we demand you vote for our proposal or against opponent proposal in UN
6)Allow always the option to demand for resources or anything even if the civ won't trade it (I've noticed that when some civ's are not willing to trade with me, I can't even demand them to give me the resource or civic or religion or world map or anything i want them to.I think this is kind of stupid :D if they were willing why should i demand then :D )
7)We demand you ally with...(eg ally with Germans)
8)We demand you withdraw your borders x blocks to the x direction from our x city

Also why the gunships are not flying over water?I think they should :D

Thanks in Advance :D See ya
 
Eh, the demanding thing is kind of silly. Especially #2. "Destroy your nukes or we'll attack!" Well, you'll get attacked back by those nukes.
 
what if i have nukes too ? :D It's like George Bush's "destroy your weapons of mass destruction" thing...Do you mean that mr Bush is silly to ask the same?????? :bump: :lol:
 
For me, the key diplomacy feature I want is TONE. i.e. when I make any kind of request or contact with another civ, I want to be able to set the overall tone. Obviously how successful your tone is will depend on the underlying circumstances.
Case in point: Lets say CivA has a vastly superior military to CivB. Now civA can set an Angry or threatening tone and-more often than not-expect a positive outcome with little or no decline in the attitude modifier. Now, if CivA set a Kind or Placatory tone, then he would have even MORE chance of getting what he wanted AND might actually see the attitude modifier improve (more bees with honey than with vinegar).
Now, if CivA was only slightly more powerful than CivB, making demands may still get him what he wants, but will probably cost him in terms of attitude modifiers, wheras being kind will have no negative impacts.
If CivA was less powerful than CivB, then being threatening will not only get him nothing, but will also have a greater chance of sparking a conflict. CivA "Hey, I demand you give me coal or I will destroy you". CivB "Oh yeah, well not if I destroy you first" (declares war).
Now, the way I see it is that 'positive tones'-like friendly, pleasant, kind, placatory-will be more appropriate when dealing from a position of weakness and/or when your two civs are already on a good footing. More negative tones-like harsh, angry, belittling, demanding or threatening-are better for when you are in the stronger position and/or you are already on a poor footing. Hope that all makes sense.

Aussie_Lurker.
 
It's a nice suggestion Aussie :) It's true that Civ4 although has it's diplomacy more advanced than previous versions, still lacks "realism"...And unfortunately not everything can be traded as it was told when the game was released..

Let's say I'm the most powerfull and most advanced civ in the world...I have all kinds of modern units and AI is still at rifling...Wouldn't it be nice I sell Jet Fighters and other kind of modern weapons to them?And by selling weapons to civ A you would get negative diplomacy from civ B who are A's worst enemies...Also my first suggestions on the first post, make the game more liberal, more realistic...This way you do actually trade for everything not only depending on your actual diplomatic relations but also to your military or other kind (maybe cultural) power like you suggest :)
Another suggestion I read somewhere and I find very good is for the player and the AI to have the choice wether they declare war to someone for hostile actions or not...Let's say I'm world's superpower and Civ B discovers URANIUM and is about to start Nukes...It would be a great feature if I run destroying his Uranium mines and possibly the units guarding it leaving the choice wether they're gonna declare war to me or not at them, depending on my military power and my/their reputation..Something like a hot diplomatic inciddent between the two civ's but not war...
 
Howitzer said:
2)Demand Destruction of units...(eg we demand you destroy your ICBMs or else we'll attack)

In real life, there are ideological motives behind disarmament. In civ, it basically sounds like "Make it easier for us to kill you or we'll kill you!" Even agreeing to disarmament in a normal diplomatic treaty (eg "Disarm and we'll give you 1000 gold") would be foolish, since the other guy would have no reason to want you to disarm unless he's planning to kill you.

3)We demand you stop building...(eg stop building spaceship components)

Given their importance, I doubt anyone would ever agree to stop building the SS, even in the face of a brutal demise, and you shouldn't theoretically know what your opponent's building unless your spying on them. Still, if they have the capability to produce, say, a certain wonder, I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to bargain with them to keep them out of the race.

4)We demand you stop researching...(eg stop researcing gunpowder)

The only techs anyone would be willing to stop researching for any amount of money are techs that you wouldn't be willing to pay to prevent being researched. As for demands, this would only allow militarily strong civs to halt the progress of scientifically strong ones.

5)we demand you vote for our proposal or against opponent proposal in UN

Why not? Civ most certainly is not a morality simulator! Votes should be bought and sold just like Ivory (though someone who refuses to sell out would have a weaker opinion of you).

6)Allow always the option to demand for resources or anything even if the civ won't trade it (I've noticed that when some civ's are not willing to trade with me, I can't even demand them to give me the resource or civic or religion or world map or anything i want them to.I think this is kind of stupid :D if they were willing why should i demand then :D )

If it's in red, they won't even give it up to a demand. Still, I think the AI should be a bit more lenient when war is an immenent threat: As it is, if they aren't willing to trade something with you, they aren't willing to give it up to avoid war. If Matthew Perry had lived in cIV, the Japanese would have just said "We don't care about your massive gunboats, we have a strict isolationist policy, so go ahead and burn us to the ground!"

7)We demand you ally with...(eg ally with Germans)

There already is the possibility to negociate war and peace on the diplomatic table. Or are you talking permalliances? Those are far too significant to be negociated by a third party.

8)We demand you withdraw your borders x blocks to the x direction from our x city

That'd be too complex.

Also why the gunships are not flying over water?I think they should :D

I forget exactly how much land a single tile represents, but it is far too much land for a helicopter to fly over. In real life, a gunship wouldn't fly across the Pacific Ocean, after all.
 
Well what if disarmament was only to be applied for offensive units and not defensive ones?Then it would have a good reason to be there :) For example you can't demand the other civ stops producing riflemen or mech infs or other defensive units, but you should be able to demand they stop producing tanks, artilery, nukes and other "aggressive" units :)

eg.Japan after their defeat at WWII was forced not to have a navy.....And I think somethink similar had happened to Germany..

As for the allliances, I'm talking about even defensive pacts :) say I have the Greeks and I have a def pact with Indians but I also wanna bring the Germans in our alliance but they would only sign def pact with me and not with indians...I would like to be able to "force" them, bribe them, whatever to sign with the indians as well :D I'm talking about expanding the alliance idea furtherly :)And maybe allowing permanent alliances include more than 2 civs :D

As about helicopter movement, I'm sure you've seen helicopters lifting off a ship in the middle of the sea flying to an island in S'n'R and military operations.So there should be even limited movement of helicopters in ocean tiles.

My general concept is that everything should be traded (like it happens in real life) and the right of the strongest is the right of all (like again it happens in real life..I mean who would dare to say no to the US or NATO if they threatened a war/nuke strike etc against someone who researches rocketry?)It's silly to see a civ that you could crash in a turn deny to trade with you and getting away with it just like that..
 
Howitzer said:
...It would be a great feature if I run destroying his Uranium mines and possibly the units guarding it leaving the choice wether they're gonna declare war to me or not at them, depending on my military power and my/their reputation..Something like a hot diplomatic inciddent between the two civ's but not war...

Something similiar was present in Civ3. I still can't forget enemy units, going through my territory and the AI, wchich rather declare war on me than pull back even if i was much stronger. Brrr.
However, with proper AI it would be great. :)
 
I want 2 specific demands:
1) on declaring peace, I want to be able to demand disarmament by limiting the loser to x number of units per city. Basically, they have enough to defend but not to declare war (aka Germany post WW1)
2) modified Monroe doctrine. AIs are no longer able to settle on a continent that has one of my government centers on it. I hate fighting a continent war, and having the AIs from other continents send settler after settler into the former AI territory before my new cities can reexpand the borders. An AI settling on my continent would be an act of war. The AI should be able to determine under current programming whether it wants to risk war or not. Programming wise, this would be as simple as treating my continent the same and my territory regardless of whether my borders are there or not. AIs would have the same ability to demand I stay off their continents. I do consider it a bug that the AIs know instantly when a prime city spot opens up even tho they have no way of knowing it under the "rules" of fog.
 
Top Bottom