Something that bugs me, and a way to fix it.

[Lockesdonkey]

If this needs to be moved to Civ4 I&S, I have no objections.

The screenie showing Julius Caesar trying to convince the player to convert to Confucianism annoyed me not because the situation is absurd, but rather because it gave the player two options: "Yes we will convert immediately!" and "No, our people will never change our beliefs!" While this is primarily cosmetic, it did prompt a line of thought that led me to think: why not give that statement some meaning? After all there are many ways to say "No." You can say it diplomatically ("I do not think that that would play well with our people. We shall have to agree to disagree, and to respect the difference in faiths between our peoples, and I assure you we grant $RELIGIONNAME2 the utmost respect.") to avoid war, so peaceful players (like myself) can have religion for its cultural benefits. Or you can say it not so diplomatically ("Our people will never give up our beliefs! Especially not in exchange for the filthy $RELIGIONNAME 2!") to instigate war, so warlike players (like so many of the others here) can use religion for its military benefit. This could apply to just about anything, in fact. Civics options, alliances, perhaps trade (tho that probably isn't necessary). We already have something similar in effect with the two options your given in negotiating a peace treaty; so why not extend it?

 

[chunkymonkey]

Agreed. I'd like to see a lot more variation in diplomacy than there currently is.

If every time somebody pops up to demand that I "convert to their religion or else", and by declining (which i invariably will always do - i'm very stubborn), they declare war, i am going to get very annoyed.

Although, I suppose its the same sort of thing as "Give us Literature or else", to a greater extent.

 

[mastertyguy]

I agree too. It is a little too much. Convert or declare war. NO!

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Of course there should be more options. Atleast in a way that you can steer your relations with others a small bit, but if for nothing else - for the purpose of roleplay.

 

[Saltylicious]

I don't know, I think that sort of sets it up for a religious war.

And like chunky monkey said, "Although, I suppose its the same sort of thing as "Give us Literature or else", to a greater extent."

So maybe it's the AI bluffing...

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Yep, once again it sounds like they will be denying us the ability to set a 'tone' for our negotiations in Civ4. How you handle diplomacy should be a key factor in how other nations respond to you, as well as your overall reputation. I don't see how they can truly claim to have 'overhauled' the diplomacy system if they haven't included such an essential feature!!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[alms66]

Yep, once again it sounds like they will be denying us the ability to set a 'tone' for our negotiations in Civ4. How you handle diplomacy should be a key factor in how other nations respond to you, as well as your overall reputation. I don't see how they can truly claim to have 'overhauled' the diplomacy system if they haven't included such an essential feature!!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

It's as easy as claiming that spearmen will no longer be able to defeat tanks... they've been claiming that since Civ2... yet we've all seen it happen.

 

[Invisible Rhino]

I'm hoping that this is an example of an ultimatum rather than a negotiation. But we'll see.

 

[letis]

The screenie showing Julius Caesar trying to convince the player to convert to Confucianism annoyed me not because the situation is absurd, but rather because it gave the player two options: "Yes we will convert immediately!" and "No, our people will never change our beliefs!"

Lol... it's a kind of "draw back any weapon of masss destruction or we shoot you... whatever, we shoot you anyway"

Sorry, I couldn't stand... but it's not so unrealistic, however we can only speculate again about the frame in which this situation is happening.

Oh and BTW , this has probably already said, but I miss the diplomacy of SMAC. I fear civ IV will not offer such diplomacy system.

regards

 

[Stilgar08]

Don't wanna repaet everything already mentioned, but I wholeheartedly agree with you! It's the good old "We want more options and possibilities to influence the way of the world without MMing but with the look at the big picture of politics (and now religions!)" demand! Let's hope, they are going to take care of this!

 

[Darwin420]

I have faith in the overhauling of the diplomacy system. The leaderheads are more animated now so we can see what 'tone' the AI is using with their request.. I'm sure they'll either give us multiple responses of varying friendliness/hostility; or they give us a 'tone' drop down...

This addition has already been used in other empire-building games... It's always confused as to why Civ didn't..

And, heck, if they don't, I'm sure the mod community will fix it.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, Darwin, I do believe you are right when you indicate the Mod community COULD probably do something to fix a lack of tones (if that is the case).
That said, though, I think its a bad idea to have to rely on the Mod community for TOO much. I want a game that has heaps of features, but with the option to add even MORE. Not a game which is short on features-even if the power exists to add heaps more! Hope that makes sense.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

The reviewers won't take the mods into account, so Firaxis can't rely on the modcommunity too much.
If the game lacks features too much, I'll just hold out until they release the expansion and decide then...

 

[Darwin420]

@Aussie: True enough that it's not good to rely on the Modders. However, Firaxis needs to create a game that clicks with the broadest audience possible. That's how they can make enough money to give us Civ 5, a SMAC remake, and many other wonderful future games!

I think the steps being taken to make cIV almost completely and utterly moddable is the best move they can make, because it will allow EVERYONE (with a little patience) to get the game they want.

I'm impressed with what they're aiming to do, and if they even hit only HALF of it, cIV will still be impressive and worth buying.

 

[Darwin420]

EDIT: for some reason this posted twice. Sorry.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Also, Its probably possible that what Ceaser is really asking for is a change in Government (Civics) options, so that If you are currently *Theocratic-Hindu then he might be made more content with your decreasing your level of religious enforcement down to *Supported Religion-Hindu (although not as much as if you went to Theocratic-Confucian)

*I have not actually confirmed these Civics settings just a example/guess

(Because I must imagine there would be some sort of 'Tolerance' Religious setting that will make all religious allies and cities equally slightly happy as opposed to seriously favoring one and slighting another)

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Thanks!

I've also thought that, for variety's sake, we could have the conversion message be different dependant on what they are asking you to convert to, so if they ask you to convert to:

Islam
"God is great! Indeed, I shall bring our people into the light of Allah!"

Christianity:

"Indeed. We shall accept Christ is our Lord and Savior.

Judaism:

"The words you speak ring true. Our people shall submit to the Law."

Taoism:

"Truly, this is the Way of the world. Who am I to resist it? We shall convert at once.

Buddhism:

"You speak wisely; I have seen the greatness of Buddha and wish to travel down the Eightfold Path. I desire an end to this suffering."

Confucianism:

"Indeed. The ancestors call, and they are offended by our imperfection. I shall follow the Way of Master Kong."

Hinduism:

"The gods have spoken. $COUNTRY1 will now follow their faith."

 

[SniperDevil]

I think they will make the conversion messages religion specific. If not than i will be very dissapointed.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

And now, a hypothetical situation. Muslim England seeks to convert Taoist India to Islam.

"God is great! Indeed, I shall bring our people into the light of Allah!" (Accept unconditionally)

"Perhaps I have been too ardent in my advocacy of the Taoist faith. Would you be satisfied if I reduced my support for the preasthood?" (This reduces the amount you support the faith. If they accept, it just goes to acceptance screen, with the other guy saying, "Hrrumph. I suppose that's enough." If it isn't, they say, "No, I will not accept that" and that leaves you with the options of accepting, rejecting demurely, and rejecting outright.)

"I do not beleive that that would be wise. We respect you and your faith, but our people are committed to the Way." (diplomatic no)

"You fool! Our people would never give up Taoism in favor of your filthy faith!" (rude no, favored by warmongers; they might just declare war on you for this).