Some criticism of diplomacy

[Mouthwash]

I have a few thoughts:

1. Why can you trade workers, resources, siege units, and contacts for techs? In Bts, tech trading had its own unique strategy. You had to go and check who had which techs to not get ripped off, you had to decide if the tech you were trading was counterbalanced by the tech you were getting, and especially which techs to trade to which civs (for instance you could trade currency to Mansa Musa, but you shouldn't trade rifling to an annoyed Monty). You had two ways to keeps up in techs. You could run a GP or cottage economy, or you could attack other civs and get techs by extorting them for peace. If you couldn't keep up by yourself, (on higher difficulties) you could "beeline" a much more advanced tech that nobody else had, and backfill your own techs by trading it around. By allowing us to trade other things in exchange for techs, all that strategy gets thrown out the window!

Expanding is now the best possible strategy, because you can now trade your resources in exchange for techs. In the vanilla game expanding hurt your economy initially (as it should have), and you had to make each city start paying for itself as soon as possible. Now I don't even have to research anything at all, because Mansa is giving me techs for my sheep and pigs! I actually skipped the ancient era entirely because everyone gave me their techs for my resources (I was by far the most primitive, now I'm the most advanced. I don't think anyone has a single tech on me). Worse yet, you can simply promise them resources for techs and declare war the same turn, just like in Civ 5.


2. Why can you trade contacts so early? Think about this. Did ancient civs like Egypt or Persia really get "contact" with distant civs through nearby ones? No. At what time did Europe establish contact with the far east? What technology would they need? It certainly did not start with the discovery of writing. True contact trading should wait until some Medieval or Renaissance tech. And to prevent Europe from contacting China or Zululand too early I think that you should lose contact after a while, and embassies (also unlocked by a later tech) could establish permanent diplomatic relations with them. This is of course taken from RFC which has some great ideas that everybody seems to ignore.

In my earth game as Hunnia, Egypt gave me contact with Mansa, whose cultural borders just happened to be in the right place to contact the Tupi (it was only a standard sized map), who will of course give me contact with the rest of the Americas. Now everybody from Qin Shi Huang to Roosevelt has contact and can trade with each other. That's what I would expect in 1700 A.D., not 3000 B.C. Had it waited until the Renaissance it would have amounted to a small anomaly (South America-Africa trading?), nothing game changing.

These broken game features are large brown stains on the pants of this otherwise brilliant mod. I think they can easily be fixed (without even taking my suggestions.) Just consider them please.

And on an unrelated note, I also think that heroes should be optional.

 

[Il Principe]

The Contact argument might count..

But regarding techs: For one thing you could simply turn off tech trading in the BUG options. Or like I do : Turn off tech brokering, that already slows tech trading a lot.
Same goes for Unit trading: I have it on, but if you don´t like it just turn it off

 

[Mouthwash]

The Contact argument might count..

But regarding techs: For one thing you could simply turn off tech trading in the BUG options. Or like I do : Turn off tech brokering, that already slows tech trading a lot.
Same goes for Unit trading: I have it on, but if you don´t like it just turn it off

Tech trading is a good source of strategy, with beelining techs and all that. I don't want to have to take it out entirely. Tech brokering still allows trading resources for tech.

 

[DRJ]

The title of this thread is chosen horrible but perhaps this is standard, after all the day-by-day diplomacy is horrible where you come from as well and that attitude may rub-off
(excuse me my overcast general suspicion but I really get angry that demonstrators are not allowed to travel to palestinian territory and that the people there have to live like in open air jails since decades!)

Regarding the topic: tech trading means you have to research techs yourself before you can trade them. With brokering you can even trade techs you didn't invent yourself (which I turn off).
Getting contacts early? Well, when are you able to trade them? Writing? At least with start as minors. Not too early, imho.

What you said "expanding is the best strategy now" I don't agree. First, you have limits how many cities you can have until you get better civics or have huge unhappiness (especially on higher difficulty that slows expansion down a lot). And the bug that resources give so much gold if sold is solved I think.

 

[Mouthwash]

The title of this thread is chosen horrible but perhaps this is standard, after all the day-by-day diplomacy is horrible where you come from as well and that attitude may rub-off
(excuse me my overcast general suspicion but I really get angry that demonstrators are not allowed to travel to palestinian territory and that the people there have to live like in open air jails since decades!)

I can't believe you just said that. Are you seriously bringing up the Israeli Palestinian conflict now? I just watched an Israeli soldier on TV being punished for mistreating a protester, while people that I know have been in Gaza strip and I personally know what goes on there, and you start ranting about "open-air" prisons?

I can't imagine how you talk to people in your life. If some you knew came from Turkey, would you randomly attack their government and accused their country of oppressing minorities? A simple, "The title of this thread is chosen horribly," would have been good.

 

[Sgtslick]

don't start threads in this forum with such titles, actually don't start threads period unless its something that isn't already being discussed somewhere. Also all the things you described are options. Go to the BUG menu under diplomacy and you will see, military unit trading, contact trading, tech trading, worker trading etc etc as OPTIONS.

 

[DRJ]

I can't imagine how you talk to people in your life. If some you knew came from Turkey, would randomly attack their government and accused their country of oppressing minorities? A simple, "The title of this thread is chosen horribly," would have been good.

I have a lot of criticism for Turkeys handling of Kurds and Armenians, too: latest its neo-osman phantasies & covered actions regarding the supply of syrian islamists.
Or China in Tibet. Or US in Afghanistan. Or german neonazis in eastern Germany.
No-one is speared, I am an internationalist.
Problem is that can't be said what must be said otherwise you're not allowed to enter Palestine or you get a butt in your face or even get shot. This is not an exception, have seen this behaviour of the IDF since years!
So your rant about diplomacy in C2C made me rant about diplomacy as well. Not the smartest move on my side, more of an coincidence as I just watched the video I linked in the previous post the minute before.
After all, I think most Israelis are not behind their governments treatement of the palestinians, 'buying' their land, erecting settlements, building long walls, diverting water sources to their own settlements, denying construction of new water wells, and other apartheit-like decades-old 'temporary solutions'. And then, after inventing terror as a policy tactic (King David Hotel) they are astonished the people they have been doing this to and whom they stole the land from are desperate and resist about what is constantly done to them.
But then again, a majority israels voters favoured this coalition, so yes, I can critizise that nothing changed since an orthodox killed Rabin -- why again did that help to get the right wings in power, I did never understand* that but then killing Robert Kennedy brought Nixon as well...

You should have read my rants about the Bush administration.

*aside of the breeding of more and more orthodox jews in more and more illegal settlements, sponsored by more and more social payments by the state which itself gets continously sponsored by US and Germany (free submarines and such), independent of their current politics.

 

[Mouthwash]

I have a lot of criticism for turkey's handling of Kurds and Armenians, too, latest it's covered actions regarding the supply of syrian islamists.
Or China in Tibet. Or US in Afghanistan. Or german Neonazis in eastern Germany.
No-one is speared, I am an Internationalist.
Problem is that can't be said what must be said otherwise you're not allowed to enter Palestine or you get a butt in your face or even get shot. This is not an exception, have seen this behaviour of the IDF since years!
So your rant about diplomacy in C2C made me rant about diplomacy as well. Not the smartest move on my side, more of an coincidence as I just watched the video I linked in the previous post the minute before.
After all, I think most Israelis are not behind their governments treatement of the palestinians, 'buying' their land, erecting settlements, building long walls, diverting water sources to their own settlements, denying construction of new water wells, and other apartheit-like decades-old 'temporary solutions'. And then, after inventing terror as a policy tactic (King David Hotel) they are astonished the people they have been doing this to and whom they stole the land from are desperate and resist about what is constantly done to them.
But then again, a majority israels voters favoured this coalition, so yes, I can critizise that nothing changed since an orthodox killed Rabin -- why again did that help to get the right wings in power, I did never understand that but then killing Robert Kennedy brought Nixon as well...

You should have read my rants about the Bush administration.

*sigh* Look, my point was that you shouldn't go around attacking countries you believe to be doing immoral practices. I don't like Iran, but if I was talking to an Iranian I wouldn't bring up the conflict.

But yes, I probably shouldn't have called the thread that.

 

[DRJ]

Hey, no problem, after all your nick is mouthwash^^ And actually I think a real friend talks openly about mistakes, so I would talk to Iranians about what I don't like about their country. But at the same time I would also say what I like. For example I was in Israel as a young boy and aside of the wonderful smell of grapefruit orchards and beautiful gardens I remember impressive landscapes and great ruins. I just wished people would live in peace and stop occupation of palestine. After all you can't expect that the cornered-in wild cats resistance can be broken by force It will fight to it's death - and yours too. But if you step aside each one can go its own way. I really believe that. But the first step must be that israel says no to its fanatics. Hard to do if they have larger and larger numbers. The state can't critizise Irans mullahs while at the same time having its government nourishing own radicals.

 

[Il Principe]

As tempting is this off topic discussion is socially and politically:
I think Mouthwash might have a point with contact trading, although I have no idea how it could be fixed. It is strange how you can get world wide diplomacy going at a time where your trade network might still rely on trail paths.
This is not just a trading contacts problem. It is reasonable to have your first overseas contact bringing you into contact with his neighbours.
But it seems strange to have full diplomacy options, and by that trade routes, at first sight.
My canoe gets to another continent by Island hoping and a lot of luck needed not to be eaten and the moment I see a local I get full diplomatic acces and depending on our border agreements trade.
Feels wrong. Is fine for me gameplay wise though.

 

[Mouthwash]

As tempting is this off topic discussion is socially and politically:
I think Mouthwash might have a point with contact trading, although I have no idea how it could be fixed. It is strange how you can get world wide diplomacy going at a time where your trade network might still rely on trail paths.
This is not just a trading contacts problem. It is reasonable to have your first overseas contact bringing you into contact with his neighbours.
But it seems strange to have full diplomacy options, and by that trade routes, at first sight.
My canoe gets to another continent by Island hoping and a lot of luck needed not to be eaten and the moment I see a local I get full diplomatic acces and depending on our border agreements trade.
Feels wrong. Is fine for me gameplay wise though.

I agree, we should just stop talking about it.

On the game, I have to disagree. It wouldn't make sense for the Aztecs to allow us contacts with the Incas or Native American tribes. There is a thread that talks about limiting unit range: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=459417

 

[DRJ]

As tempting is this off topic discussion is socially and politically:
I think Mouthwash might have a point with contact trading, although I have no idea how it could be fixed. It is strange how you can get world wide diplomacy going at a time where your trade network might still rely on trail paths.
This is not just a trading contacts problem. It is reasonable to have your first overseas contact bringing you into contact with his neighbours.
But it seems strange to have full diplomacy options, and by that trade routes, at first sight.
My canoe gets to another continent by Island hoping and a lot of luck needed not to be eaten and the moment I see a local I get full diplomatic acces and depending on our border agreements trade.
Feels wrong. Is fine for me gameplay wise though.

Yes that is true. Trade routes could take some turns to get into full effect and they could be more efficient the closer the civs are to each other
(btw aside of that: in civ5 tech trade agreements last X turns, upon finishing you get a tech you don't have yet -- but in civ5 this works a bad way cause even if your trading partner has no tech you don't already have you get a tech from that agreement. Could be re-invented for C2C...)

Regarding contact trades: I thought about it again and must say that I think it surely benefited some ancient civilisation to be the initiator of having two other civs establish trade with each other. Think of Petra: the people wanted the trade routes between romans and jemenites to be established so they could have their share. Contact trade is as old as taking advantage is within human nature. But I think that contact trade should come at a cost, too: it must benefit the nation who trades the contact before it would be considered to be traded*.

For example trade routes going through their territory could prospect them a % share of that amount of trade/turn! [new economic strategies here for builder/pacifists]

(*Of course there might be subtle human strategies about this wanting to enable contact between other AIs without direct benefits so that AIs can evolve more easily to cope better with their big neighbours - I don't think the AI has this strategic level atm.)

 

[Koshling]

I think if you are able to declare war the turn after you trade it's a bug - trade agreements are supposed to come with a period of enforced peace. Maybe this isn't applying to certain types of trade?

Also, if you see trades where you think the AI is being dumb to make the trade (over valuing a resource most typically) post save games with instructions on what trades you can propose and have accepted that you think you shouldnt be able to (be sure to save BEFORE making the agrement so I can analyse the acceptance process)

 

[hotrodlincoln]

I think if you are able to declare war the turn after you trade it's a bug - trade agreements are supposed to come with a period of enforced peace. Maybe this isn't applying to certain types of trade?

Also, if you see trades where you think the AI is being dumb to make the trade (over valuing a resource most typically) post save games with instructions on what trades you can propose and have accepted that you think you shouldnt be able to (be sure to save BEFORE making the agrement so I can analyse the acceptance process)

I can confirm that the peace treaty isn't applying to all trades the way it should. The only one it seems to be working on is when the AI asks you for a gift or favor. My last game, I tried to bribe a hostile nation that was right next to the one I actually wanted to declare war on, so I gave them a few techs to try and get a peace treaty. It didn't work, and they declared on me the moment my big stack of doom left my country.

 

[Koshling]

I can confirm that the peace treaty isn't applying to all trades the way it should. The only one it seems to be working on is when the AI asks you for a gift or favor. My last game, I tried to bribe a hostile nation that was right next to the one I actually wanted to declare war on, so I gave them a few techs to try and get a peace treaty. It didn't work, and they declared on me the moment my big stack of doom left my country.

I suspect it only applies to trades that have an ongoing effect (like gold-per-turn, or resource trades). However, the OP mentioned trading techs for resources, whuich I would ahve expected to b covered by this (the resourc side of the equation should carry a duration). One-off events lik tech or map trades I think don't have the peace-implication.

 

[hotrodlincoln]

I just ran a quick test game to get to the bottom of this. Resource trades are not causing peace treaties.

 

[Il Principe]

For example trade routes going through their territory could prospect them a % share of that amount of trade/turn! [new economic strategies here for builder/pacifists]

I like that

Could that also get into economic civics: Higher taxes on "foreign" trade routes using your roads.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

I just ran a quick test game to get to the bottom of this. Resource trades are not causing peace treaties.

I can confirm this.

There has always been a problem with trade in the Civ series, you can only trade with peoples you know. Whereas in history you could get goods from peoples you do not know through intermediate trades. So as in DRJ's example Roman traders would go to Petra to buy stuff from the far away eastern cultures and pay the Nabataeans for the privilege. Later emmasaries and explorers would be sent out to make contact with these new nations.

We would need to change the trade mechanic before we can change the diplomacy mechanic much. Note I am working on getting diplomacy working with barbarian cities and should have a first cut available in the next day or two.

 

[Koshling]

I can confirm this.

There has always been a problem with trade in the Civ series, you can only trade with peoples you know. Whereas in history you could get goods from peoples you do not know through intermediate trades. So as in DRJ's example Roman traders would go to Petra to buy stuff from the far away eastern cultures and pay the Nabataeans for the privilege. Later emmasaries and explorers would be sent out to make contact with these new nations.

We would need to change the trade mechanic before we can change the diplomacy mechanic much. Note I am working on getting diplomacy working with barbarian cities and should have a first cut available in the next day or two.

I see no reason why resource trading shouldn't force peacy treaties thoguh. This seems to be a separate point...

 

[Sgtslick]

as long as the AI is smart enough to realise that although they want those furs, it will mean 30+ turns of peace, if they were considering a war, perhaps this isn't a good trade. Also what about things like espionage, where sometimes war is declared because of your spies, or even when you bribe another team to go to war with them, this often will start a war with you aswell, this would be problematic.