New Diplomatic Options

[bob rulz]

Okay, every successive civ game has had better and better diplomatic options, and that trend should continue. There's still a lot they could do in the diplomatic field. Here are my suggestions.

First and foremost, you should be able to open up diplomatic alliances with more than one civ at a time! This would add an entirely new element of strategy into the game.

Second, changes to the already-existing diplomatic options. You should be able to sign a trade embargo without having to bring another civilization into it. Like, you declare a trade embargo on Russia or whatever, if no one else will agree with you on it or if you don't want anyone to agree to it. Also, the AI should at least give you gifts sometimes. Also, they shouldn't get as mad if you bring workers, scouts, or settlers into their territory as they should if you bring military units into their territory. Sure, they should still get mad, but they shouldn't flip out over it.


Third, here are my new additions. A non-aggression pact (like the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939). You agree not to attack them. This could be implemented like if you don't want to fight a two-front war for example (like the Germans didn't want in World War II). You should be able to bargain for units and specific pieces of territory (for whatever reason). Also, if you're kicking the crap out of someone they can surrender, or you can demand (or offer) a surrender, in which they surrender unconditionally. They have to give up cities/territory/luxuries/units/resources or whatever to you. In the same category, if you're getting the crap kicked out of you, you can surrender (or they can demand or offer that you surrender), in which you agree to give up stuff and get nothing in return.

Fourth, here is my idea for the United Nations. When you build it, they automatically have a vote for secretary-general. The three most powerful civilizations would get the oppurtunity to become secretary-general and whoever becomes secretary-general is obviously in charge of the United Nations. With the United Nations, you must at least try to negotiate peace between warring members, and you must maintain a UN Security Force for peacekeeping operations. You can choose if you want to be in the United Nations or not, but not being in means that you will have a harder time negotiating with member nations (which will be most civs). I don't have all the details fleshed out, but I'm working on it. I think the UN could be a much more versatile and interesting wonder, and could use some significant overhaul.

 

[bob rulz]

.......

 

[Bast]

I think a non-agressive is like a mutual protection pact?

I think that you should be able to sell territory without thinking that it constitutes war like in Conquests.

Of course, no AI civ should give up their territory easily but given the right price why not? I mean the territory sales have occurrred a lot in history with US buying Alaska etc..

 

[punkbass2000]

I think a non-agressive is like a mutual protection pact?

Not really. MPPs will cause you to declare war on civs that attack your MPP partner in their territory. NAPs will just prevent you from declaring war on your NAP partner.

 

[Dida]

being able to surrender is a great idea. I think if someone surrenders, he will be reduced to vessel state status, upon which he can only build defensive units, and has to pay whatever tribute (gold/resource) to the victor. The vessel might also be asked to join a war with the victor in time of need.

 

[Mr. Will]

Mebbe you can specify arms limits, restrictions, etc.?

 

[slothman]

I think a non-aggression pact could be like a alliance exception. In an alliance you will attack anybody who attacks them but with the non-aggression pact and alliance you would attack anybody who attacks your ally except your non-aggression friend. So Russia wouldn't have to attack France in WW2 when Germany attacked France but might have to attack Brazil or some other unrelated country it has no pact with.

 

[bob rulz]

Mebbe you can specify arms limits, restrictions, etc.?

I never thought of this. Good idea.

 

[bob rulz]

I think a non-aggression pact could be like a alliance exception. In an alliance you will attack anybody who attacks them but with the non-aggression pact and alliance you would attack anybody who attacks your ally except your non-aggression friend. So Russia wouldn't have to attack France in WW2 when Germany attacked France but might have to attack Brazil or some other unrelated country it has no pact with.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing...so are you saying if your NAP partner attacks your MPP partner you don't have to declare war on them? There could be a sort of checking system to keep the two in check with each other. I like this idea too, although this one did cross my mind.

 

[Albow]

like the idea of thre way treaty discussions, also, like SMAC doing the whole stop beating up on someone treaty ... and WAY agree on the unit trade thingy ... sometimes an ally is getting kicked, you don't want to hand over gunpowder tech, but do want to lend them some muskets ... I'd love it if this could be done

 

[Dida]

NAP basically is a peace treaty in time of time. You agree to continue to stay in peace with your NAP partner, and that is it. Doesn't matter what he is doing, or what is being done to him, you stay in peace with him.

 

[MeatWad]

Man! I really like the idea of being able to give military units to a Civ in need. If you aren't at war with their foe, then your troops are mercenary (think Hessians) and your support would garner bonus cash for your coffers. If you are at war with a mutual enemy, then diplomatic relations between allies should be strengthened and reflected - how I'm not quite sure yet. I am totally digging the concept of building a big, surplus army and selling it off to the highest bidder. It's making me giddy!!!!

 

[JennyRad]

Definitely civs should be able to surrender. There's no way they wouldn't, in some of the circumstances I've had them in ... a peace treaty just doesn't cut it.

There's something ... odd ... about the UN, too. Currently civs only vote for civilisations they admire, basically, so if you've made them cross by beating someone else up, they'll vote against you because that way the game's over. But if it were "real", and you were in that situation, and you were strongest, they'd vote for you, to stop you from beating them up ...

 

[Mewtarthio]

I love the NAP idea! Also, you should be able to force enemies to sign NAPs with each other. You should also be allowed to renegotiate deals before twenty turns expire (eg if you're paying ten GPT and have ten turns left you should be able to negociate to pay five GPT for the next twenty turns instead. Or just cancel it outright, like Hitler did). Finally, if someone declares war on your MPP partner, you shouldn't have to automatically go to war. You should have three options: Honor, Cancel, Renegociate. Renegociating would have less of a rep hit than outright Cancelling, since you're at least making some form of compensation. Also, if someone declares war on you, you should be able to choose whether you'll hold your allies to said agreement.