The Armstice

Argetnyx

Emperor
Joined
Aug 10, 2008
Messages
1,048
The armstice is a war-ending treaty that includes one (or more) civs to surrender and submit to the terms made by the winning civ(s).

The terms would include:
1) Reduction of military strength.
2) Inability to build certain types of units (tanks, artillery, aircraft, etc.)
3) Splitting into it's national parts (like Austria-Hungary into Austria and Hungary)
4) The planting of a new government.
5) Giving away land to another country (like parts of Germany and Russia into Poland)
6) Paying reperations set by the winning side.

These terms are not unlimited, you will only be able to do a certain number, or amount, depending on the size and cost of the war. The armstice is between two, or more, warring countries; defeated countries cannot be eradicated, but that does not mean that the terms will not have consequence. Terms too harsh may cause unrest in the population of the defeated country, but too light may make the victor seem weak.
 
I like the idea. The Treaty of Versailles as you describe was a famous example of this. Perhaps there could be positive outcomes for the losing side as well such as extra trade routes created between the two countries (I'm thinking of the Common Market created after WWII).
 
I love the idea. I am all along crying for better diplomacy. I like the system in europe universalis which is something like u have a value of your war efforts put together in peace negotiations which tell u for how much u can ask (ceading of city(province), vasalisation, anexation, etc.) The present system in civ is just ******ed just like the rest of the diplo..
 
What you describe has nothing to do with an Armistice. (The whole point of which is that none of the involved parties surrender.)

What you descibe is called unconditional surrender and has basically already been included in the game (since civ4:warlords) as capitulation.
 
I agree with Trias, and again, you wouldn't need to implement this unconditional surrender feature to have the same effect. By all means include the treaty options that you outlined, but the same result could be gained through a civ accepting all of your normal peace treaty terms. That's an unconditional surrender.
 
What you describe has nothing to do with an Armistice. (The whole point of which is that none of the involved parties surrender.)

What you descibe is called unconditional surrender and has basically already been included in the game (since civ4:warlords) as capitulation.
Fine, but is it anything like the current 'capitulation' option? Maybe I should call it 'surrender'.
 
Fine, but is it anything like the current 'capitulation' option? Maybe I should call it 'surrender'.


Well, in civ 4 (from warlords onwards) there are 3 ways a war can end:

1 - A cease-fire agreement. There is temporary hold on hostilities between the two warring parties, no peace is declared. Lasts 10 turns after which it can be cancelled.

2 - A peace treaty. Peace is declared. No new war can declared for 10 turns. One party can offer additional elements in this deal: This can include:
* Gold (lumpsum or per turn) 'Reparations' if you will.
* Cities (it think you can also offer the liberation of cities to their original owner not sure though) This would be your point 5)
* Change of civics. (your point 4))
* Technology
* Force war/peace/stop trading (I think)

3 - Capitulation. The loser becomes a vassal state under protection of the victor. (The master can pretty much demand anything from the vassal. Any refusal leads directly to war. (with the vassal taking the diplomatic hit for declaring.)) This can include any of the additional terms of peace treaties.

Your points 1) and 2) would be interesting additions to have as options in the deal.

Your point 3) has little to no meaning in terms of civ.
 
Your points 1) and 2) would be interesting additions to have as options in the deal.

Your point 3) has little to no meaning in terms of civ.
Yes it would, any previously conquered territory is given back to the origional owner.
 
Yeah, I love the possible additions to terms of peace, or terms of diplomacy regardless of war status, but I think it's safe to say that armistice is already sufficiently covered in the game.
 
Well, let's talk about that then...
OK.
1) Reduction of military strength.

How would this function. I imagine that it would involve some sort of percentage reduction in power, rather than a particular number of units? The problem with this would come with the fact that power is not only based on units but on things such as barracks (IIRC). It would be hard to reduce power, as such, so perhaps the only option would be to place a cap on the units that can be built, drafted or upgraded in a given period of time, and similarly limit other military and power factors, such as the construction of barracks and forts. And their would have to be a limit on this, like, say, 10 turns, to prevent absolute abuse.

2) Inability to build certain types of units (tanks, artillery, aircraft, etc.)

This would work, too. However, there should never be the ability to ban the creation of the standard units (i.e. archer, rifleman, mech. inf.). And there should be some way around this, regarding espionage points. That is, secret production could take place given a particular amount of espionage cover.

3) Splitting into it's national parts (like Austria-Hungary into Austria and Hungary)

This would be tricky, seeing as the concept of nationalities is not present in civ, other than the nationalities of the various players, which is covered in your fifth point. Perhaps the forced partition of a nation along arbitrary lines (such as East and West Germany, or North and South Korea) should be possible to cover this point.

4) The planting of a new government.

Does this purely mean a change in civics (which is already in the game), or a change in leader, or a complete change of diplomatic relations in line with the conquerers relations (ala the creation of a puppet state)?

5) Giving away land to another country (like parts of Germany and Russia into Poland)

This is already possible, although in a round about way. You can get a city and then give it to someone else, but there isn't the direct option to demand a city goes straight to another civ. Part of the reason for this is that there is no incentive to demand that another civ gets another city. Everyone is an opponent. There would need to be some sort of incentive in order for this to be a usable option in diplomacy.

6) Paying reperations set by the winning side.

This is reflected in gold and gold per turn currently. However, I reckon it would be nice if they changed it so that you could demand an infinite amount of gold (of course capped by the ability to pay and by the refusal to surrender of a civ if the price is too high). Currently, you might not be able to get much gold because there is 0 surplus gold per turn available. But they might be running research at 100%. So, you should be able to demand gold per turn even if they don't currently have that in surplus.
 
How would this function. I imagine that it would involve some sort of percentage reduction in power, rather than a particular number of units? The problem with this would come with the fact that power is not only based on units but on things such as barracks (IIRC). It would be hard to reduce power, as such, so perhaps the only option would be to place a cap on the units that can be built, drafted or upgraded in a given period of time, and similarly limit other military and power factors, such as the construction of barracks and forts. And their would have to be a limit on this, like, say, 10 turns, to prevent absolute abuse.
What I meant by that was: Limiting the size of the military, maybe by units/city.
This would work, too. However, there should never be the ability to ban the creation of the standard units (i.e. archer, rifleman, mech. inf.). And there should be some way around this, regarding espionage points. That is, secret production could take place given a particular amount of espionage cover.
That was my idea, I was going to post it anyway, but you beat me to it.
This would be tricky, seeing as the concept of nationalities is not present in civ, other than the nationalities of the various players, which is covered in your fifth point. Perhaps the forced partition of a nation along arbitrary lines (such as East and West Germany, or North and South Korea) should be possible to cover this point.
I does exist, just not very much. Each of your citizens are of a certain nationality, are they not?
Does this purely mean a change in civics (which is already in the game), or a change in leader, or a complete change of diplomatic relations in line with the conquerers relations (ala the creation of a puppet state)?
Just a change in civics, for a limited amount of time. Puppet states are for conquerers.
This is already possible, although in a round about way. You can get a city and then give it to someone else, but there isn't the direct option to demand a city goes straight to another civ. Part of the reason for this is that there is no incentive to demand that another civ gets another city. Everyone is an opponent. There would need to be some sort of incentive in order for this to be a usable option in diplomacy.
Then we need a way to make it more desireable. Diplomatic ties need to be strengthened, or something like that.
This is reflected in gold and gold per turn currently. However, I reckon it would be nice if they changed it so that you could demand an infinite amount of gold (of course capped by the ability to pay and by the refusal to surrender of a civ if the price is too high). Currently, you might not be able to get much gold because there is 0 surplus gold per turn available. But they might be running research at 100%. So, you should be able to demand gold per turn even if they don't currently have that in surplus.
Good point...
 
I does exist, just not very much. Each of your citizens are of a certain nationality, are they not?

Your population is composed of various nationalities dependant upon cultural influence, yes, but these are nationalities purely of your own civ or other civs. If a treaty was going to be made to create entities based on these national lines, then it would just involve the transfer of cities to the nation that the people belong to, which is already an option (through your fifth point, which, as outlined, it already possible in a round about way). The breakup of AH after World War One would be hard to replicate in civ, though, as the nationalities represented in that are on what we could call a sub-civ level. The nationalities are not actually that of any competitor. They are distinct nationalities without an entity of their own. Now, this would be fine to have in civ, if these sub-civ nationalities existed, which they don't. By all, means implement that, but that would need to be done prior to introducing this diplomatic option.

Then we need a way to make it more desireable. Diplomatic ties need to be strengthened, or something like that.

Yeah, a big diplomatic bonus would be good.
 
Your population is composed of various nationalities dependant upon cultural influence, yes, but these are nationalities purely of your own civ or other civs. If a treaty was going to be made to create entities based on these national lines, then it would just involve the transfer of cities to the nation that the people belong to, which is already an option (through your fifth point, which, as outlined, it already possible in a round about way). The breakup of AH after World War One would be hard to replicate in civ, though, as the nationalities represented in that are on what we could call a sub-civ level. The nationalities are not actually that of any competitor. They are distinct nationalities without an entity of their own. Now, this would be fine to have in civ, if these sub-civ nationalities existed, which they don't. By all, means implement that, but that would need to be done prior to introducing this diplomatic option.
They were not sub-civs, they were civs that AH took over to build their own empire. Another example of splitting along national boundaries, even though not as extreme, is the breakup of the Soviet Union, countries such as: Ukraine, Belorussia, Kazakhstan (sp?), Tajikistan, and many others were 'reformed' when there was no longer a strong government controlling the USSR.
 
I'm not trying to demean those particular nationalities, I'm just saying that AH comprised of many 'nationalities' that would not be in the top 18 civs in the world. There are many and varied nationalities in the world within what would be in a Civ terms a 'civ', and these could feasibly represent different sub-nationalities, making your point workable through the creation of intra-civilization cultural differences, leading to the possibility of a breakup of a civ on cultural or national grounds.
 
Top Bottom