Peacemaker option

[Genshed]

This may sound a bit . . . strange, but I had this idea
while playing recently.
Say two other civs are having a war, and for whatever
reason, you would like them to stop. There could be
a diplomatic option where you can request/invite/bribe
them to the peace-talk table.

If you're playing with Diplomatic Solution enabled, it
could give you 'credit' toward your victory; e.g.,
the two civs who made peace would be guaranteed
to vote for you as SecGen.

It would also improve your reputation among all non-militaristic
civs.

Robert

 

[sir_schwick]

You could ask for third-party demands in SMAC. This was especially useful whenever a weaker trading partner or ally was losing a war, but you were not at war with their enemy. You were bigger so you threatned them to stop before you had to interfere.

I have no idea why this functionality was not in Civ 3.

 

[dh_epic]

I think this is a great idea. I once called for something like a "moral victory" where you gain points for doing things like this.

It should replace the diplomatic victory entirely -- where your nation is remembered as the light and savior of history. Consider it the exact opposite of being remembered as the world's largest, more powerful superpower.

I honestly wouldn't mind hardwiring morality. Maybe not in the earlier ages, where everything goes. But to me it's impossible to invent democracy and communism and even environmentalism and still believe that it's okay to commit the genocide of an entire race.

 

[brinko]

i remember some where on civ 3 box i read that peace could be forced through diplomatic negotiations. i was actually thinking u could force to ai countries to sign peace with eachother...but maybe i read it wrong, because i have no idea how u do this...

 

[sir_schwick]

I honestly wouldn't mind hardwiring morality. Maybe not in the earlier ages, where everything goes. But to me it's impossible to invent democracy and communism and even environmentalism and still believe that it's okay to commit the genocide of an entire race.

It still is not impossible for entire countries not to care about mass genocide.

 

[Kayak]

It still is not impossible for entire countries not to care about mass genocide.

All too true...

@dh_epic I don't think that morality should be hardwired at all. Human ideas of morality has evolved over time and will continue. If a way could be found through tech discoveries or wonders to evolve morality in the game it would be interesting.

 

[dh_epic]

Human morality has evolved over time and will continue, yes.

But so has technology. So has social progress.

Civilization hardwires all of these into a linear, predictable narrative. First you're an empire. Then you discover more humane and culturally noble ideas. Then you democratize. Then you become environmentally conscious, even.

For a game that hardwires all those things, morality is pretty much already there. They've hardwired it so democracies hate war, even.

 

[GoodGame]

In GALCIV you can negotiate any two-part deal from anything, including Attack (blank) and Make Peace (with blank), without it being a reciprocal deal.

A really good one would be to ask B, "broker deal between A and myself" when you can't bring A to the peace table yourself.

 

[Kayak]

Civilization hardwires all of these into a linear, predictable narrative. First you're an empire. Then you discover more humane and culturally noble ideas. Then you democratize. Then you become environmentally conscious, even.

For a game that hardwires all those things, morality is pretty much already there. They've hardwired it so democracies hate war, even.

True and I wish that would be changed. I've neve really been interested in recreating history. If a game happens to go that way it's neat, but I like exploring the "what if" scenario more.

Democracy is so messed up, thats why everyone chooses comunism.

 

[dh_epic]

Don't get me wrong, making a game where even morality is dynamic would be neat. To me, it would be awesome if Fascism wasn't hardwired with forced relocation -- who says it has to be? To me, it would be awesome if Democracy wasn't hardwired with war weariness -- who says it has to be? To me, it would be awesome if you could span the entire game without discovering ecology, or a united nations, or democracy, or even monotheism.

But let's work with what we have. It's fun to talk about Civ 5 or 6 or 7, but looking at Civ 4, I tend to focus more on what we can do in the short term, with the long term there more just to inspire vision.

If you did hardwire some moral progress, you could actually make new game conditions and goals to work through.

There are several "inevitabilities" that we can "count on".

Globalization -- a sense of a global community that scrutenizes one another.
Expanding Religious Thought -- more people who see all religions as leading to the same place, instead of something that divides people.
Modern Global Warfare -- the after effects of war become more widespread and brutal.
Mass Media -- in the age of information, people can get a sense of the realities of war and the world.

It's then no doubt that you can have mass amounts of peace-loving people against at least SOME war, and who see the aversion of genocide as a good thing. (That is, of course, if they NOTICE the genocide.) For many people in many nations, they become very upset when their governments refuse to do something about mass amounts of death. Governments thus make it a goal to encourage peace and human rights around the world.

The key word is goal: governments make it a goal to "do the right thing".

Now this doesn't have to totally ruin the game for everybody. I'm not talking about branding any nation who goes on world conquest evil. Nor am I talking about those who ignore genocide as getting bright flashing warning messages from their AI-programmed conscience. All I'm saying is that by the modern age, doesn't it make sense that averting genocide makes you considered a hero? To lay it out simply, one thing that makes the modern age so interesting is that people ARE trying to do "good things".

In Civ, there's no encouragement to do so, because war is always seen as amoral and selfish. And in making a game amoral, it actually indirectly makes the game anti-historical. You couldn't explain the past 50 years of history if you didn't believe in the most simple of rights and wrongs.

 

[klopolov]

I'm all for it, I hope they do something along those lines... The modern age seems to promote war with all the new weapons (especially when you are the first one to get them) and I don't like that. I also don't like the AIs killing off my trading partners who were going to vote for me in the UN, but declaring war to save them means one other AI will not be happy with me...

 

[dexters]

I think the diplomacy in Civ4 needs a step up in sophistication and depth.

Generally, this has to do with the AI's ability to handle the diplomacy options. A more useful UN where you can use it as a political tool would also be interesting.

 

[GoodGame]

I think turning it into a victory condition is a bit thick (idealistic, but not realistic).

Definitely brokering peace should be a means of boosting your reputation, and in turn, one more way to win the UN popularity contest of Diplomatic Victory.


dh_epic:

I think this is a great idea. I once called for something like a "moral victory" where you gain points for doing things like this.

It should replace the diplomatic victory entirely -- where your nation is remembered as the light and savior of history. Consider it the exact opposite of being remembered as the world's largest, more powerful superpower.

 

[GR8Madmax]

Excellent suggestions and something like this would enhance the diplomatic part of the game greatly. I hope Firaxis is reading this.

 

[dh_epic]

I rather think the diplomatic victory ought to be overhauled altogether. Increasing reputation so you can score a diplomatic victory is kind of useless if the computer can just turn around and be a jerk, let alone if you're playing multiplayer.

But perhaps a way that you could be good enough to another Civ that you're essentially GUARANTEED the precious UN vote for victory (or whatever gets you a peaceful / moral / diplomatic victory in Civ 4)... that would be interesting.

It's the kind of thing where Britain liberates France, and gives it back to their people instead of keeping it... and all of Britains enemies say "DAMMIT! He's going to win if he keeps doing stuff like that!"

 

[GoodGame]

I agree with you there. On aggressive, the AI is the dirtiest, "us against them (then against you)" backstabber there is. Like the Agathie Christie book, the AI just plays "one less" as it repeatedly puts together an alliance just to pick on the weakest nation.

Maybe with the proposed "Governmental Victory" or a stronger bias to a "Diplomatic victory" the AI might pursue other means than bully-boy belligerence as a means to guarantee one of the victory conditions. I'm not completely arguing with the AI's logic, just that it is kind of funny that every AI nation tends to be a cutthroat by the endgame (even India!). Real-life isn't quite that bad.

QUOTE]
Dh_Epic
Cold War Veteran

dh_epic's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dayton
Posts: 1,584

I rather think the diplomatic victory ought to be overhauled altogether. Increasing reputation so you can score a diplomatic victory is kind of useless if the computer can just turn around and be a jerk, let alone if you're playing multiplayer.[/QUOTE]

 

[thescaryworker]

If the AI could think,
It'd really be AI,
Because this AI,
Only knows rules and benefits,
AIs are supposed to think,
But what we face,
Are computers responding to action.

 

[sir_schwick]

I wouldn't mind the AI ganging up, as long as they did it to each other as well. AIs should try to eliminate anyone who is getting too strong, and get you to help.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Another idea I had was establishment of peacekeeping operations.

Let's say that there is turmoil in country X. For the sake of argument, let's allow there to be a section of country X that rebels against the central government A(there are lots of us, myself included, who would like that) The UN has been built and the rest of the world doesn't want country X to fall. So the establish a UNPKO. How? First, an operation is authorized by a vote of the members of the UN (a feature I'd like to see is the right to reject UN membership). This basically says, you are authorized to go into country X and only country X for the purpose of ___, generally try to get country X to recognize rebels independance before getting overrun by them, or to force the rebels into quieting down. A "crisis zone" is designated. Thus each nation that chooses to participate can send units to its own capital where the option will appear for joining the PKO. A color change will occur; the national color bands will remain the same, but the predominant color of the thing will be UN blue. It is immediately transported to the crisis zone. UN peacekeepers have lower attack capability but a higher defensive capability than usual. They also serve as military police, regardless of the government type, and each peacekeeper causes two content faces. The presence of peacekeepers entices both sides to the negotiating table. If a peacekeeper leaves the crisis zone, it is no longer a peacekeeper and returns to normal.

However, there is another option as well. After the creation of the UN, it can pass a resolution creating an RRF (rapid reaction force), and allow each nation to contribute. This force remains within the city in which the UN is built. Whenever a rebellion breaks out or a government askes the UN for help, the RRF can deploy to that region, pending the approval of a UNPKO. However, by that point in time, the presence of the RRF may have negated the need for the PKO.