New Diplomacy Options!

[Aussie_Lurker]

I'd love to see diplomacy expanded in a MAJOR way. Perhaps with the following:

1) Multilateral Trade, ROP's, Mutual Defence Pacts and Alliances!!

2) The ability to intervene between two warring civs, and demand that one civ cease it's conflict with the other!!

3) Science and anti-pollution Pacts.

4) Protectorates, a la SMAC.

5) UN votes on diplomatic issues such as wars and embargoes!!

6) The ability to 'Liberate' a city for an ally-this would depend on the nationality of the majority of the cities inhabitants!! eg. You capture a city which once belonged to your allies, the Arabs and, on entering, over 70% of the citizens are Arabs! A pop-up box should appear asking if you want to CONQUER the city, or LIBERATE it back to your Arab allies! If you chose the former, it would probably harm your diplomatic standing with said ally!! EDIT: You should be able to Liberate a city even if you're NOT allies-as doing so could improve your reputation with that Civ, and other Civs who are friendly to them, and improve your ability to do deals with said civs!!

7) The ability to surrender or demand actual LAND-either as a trade ('The Louisiana Purchase') or as part of a cease-fire/war aversion strategy!
This last one would work by having a mimi-map where you can draw a rectangle to indicate the size of the territory you want/are giving. This would then turn up on the 'table' like any other trade item! If it is accepted, then the cultural borders would be adjusted accordingly!!!

Well, those are my ideas, in no particular order. Plz let me know what you think of them .

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Lab Monkey]

I agree with all of your ideas!
My problem with civ is that no matter how advanced you get, we're still dealing with medieval principles of diplomacy, generally emerging as "Die scumbag! I want to win the game, so I'll conquer you!"

A set of moral principals to follow would be a start, and war wearyness isn't nearly good enough. Civ 2's system of the senate overrulling actions was good. Warlike civs swapped Diplomacy for fundamentalism, sacrificing their tech lead. With Civ3's improved victory conditions, this would open the way for government choice leading to different attitudes and victories (a democratic civ could conquer the world through culture, and expand through a few 'moraly justifyable wars'), a fundamentalist or totalitarian civ could try to conquer the world, but would not be able to forge an alliance with a democratic nation (or risk extreme displeasure from both nations' citizens) and would quikly fall behing advance wise.

The worst thing IMHO at the moment is the sheer bloodthirstyness.

 

[Aendolin]

"2) The ability to intervene between two warring civs, and demand that one civ cease it's conflict with the other!!"

Oh please please let that one be put in...

I registered for these forums just to rally for this feature. Its absence is really noticable.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Actually, bringing back things like the Senate for democratic governments would be a fantastic adjunct to all of the diplomacy options I mentioned above! It should be a BIT more sensible than the Civ2 one, though, with decisions depending on the nature of the Civ itself. For instance, the Senate of a militaristic or expansionist Civ would probably be more hawkish than one from a religious or commercial Civ! In fact, the senates of the former might actually derail your attempts to make peace, or even demand that you make war with another Civ. An extra factor in how a senate responds to your diplomacy, though, would be the government of the other Civ-as you mentioned-and the cultural relationship of the two civs! eg. two senates of two European Civs would, on average, be more inclined to a friendly relationship than a European and American Civ . Oh, also, the characteristics of the other Civ would be of importance too. ie the senate of a commercial Civ might well be quite distrustful of a militaristic Civ-especially if they start asking for ROP's or military alliances-and thus might block your attempts to negotiate with them! Anyway, these are just some rough ideas for a 'workable' senate. I'd be interested to hear what you guys think.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.