Um... Diplomacy

[hclass]

If Firaxis ever wants to expand on or improve DIPLOMACY in CIV4, there will and must happen in either of the three results as below:

1. They really made it, the A.I. is so intelligent, as wise as you and I. But this make the game no more a game, becuase the diplomacy play will be as abstract as real life. Aren't we play game just to escape from the real-life-kind of problem and solution?

2. They manage to improve the A.I. to an average intelligent level. But this make those diplomacy-die-hard players (who want it as real as possible, as complicated as possible) still NOT HAPPY becuase it is still far from what they want. On the other hand, for those who already find diplomacy in Civ3 is so frustrating (stupid interface, A.I. activities unpreditable and can't be controlled an so on), this improvement will totally wipe their interest in the game.

3. They still fail to improve the DIPLOMACY or even make it worse. The A.I. is still as (or more) stupid, the interface is still that lousy. This means EVERYBODY not happy!

So, why put effort in DIPLOMACY? Why not just remove it?

Make a game named "Sid Meier's The Great Diplomacy" which is diplomacy centric. No real war (and thus no units), no explore (and thus no map), no building (and thus no city), no micro mantainance (and thus no sweat), everybody just sit down and TALK everthing OUT. I am sure they are still a good number of fans will buy this type of game.

 

[Teabeard]

I think the ai in Civ 3 is pretty smart enough as it is. What really needs to be improved is to have more diplomatic options and make the U.N. mean something.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic and in doing so criticizing Firaxis, Civ or the players.

 

[sealman]

They do not need to make the AI an "Uber-AI" to improve the diplomatic aspect of the game. Just improve the AI's understanding of the tactical disadvantages to certain treaties.

For example: (This is a very common senario in my games.)

The player's civ (Germany) is one of the strongest civs in the game and firmly entrenched on a contient. There is a small civ (Rome) that neighbors the players civ which is one or two cities. The player never bothered to conqure this civ since there are no resources within his boundaries, thus no reason to go to war except for expansion. The player and this civ have been strong trading partners and are gracious towards one another. The player is currently at war with another strong civ (Greece). Greece decides to sign a ma with Rome against Germany and Rome accepts.

Rome should be able to realize that if it goes to war against Germany it will lose and that there is no way Greece and prevent this from happening.

This needs to be fixed.

As for the UN, It does mean something. It means a way to win the game via diplomacy and nothing needs to be added to it. Just my opinion but I would not mind seeing some other functions to the UN provided that it does not unbalance the game and make the UN a more powerful wonder. As it it, it is one of hte most powerful since it is the only wonder that can win (or lose) the game.

No matter what they do with Diplomacy, they will never please everyone. the object is to please as many people as possible, without hurting their profit margin.

 

[sir_schwick]

So, why put effort in DIPLOMACY? Why not just remove it?

I would like to think hclass is joking. Unfortunately we all lived through the, 'lets have a FPS mode that comes up during battles. in ancient era it could be like Stree Fighter and in industrial it could be like Metal of Honor,' thread. Sadly enough the original poster of the idea was so badly flamed he has never returned.

The point should be to make a great game, but eveyrone's definition of great is different. However, I think the UN victory should be removed and the UN should be much like the planetary council in SMAC. This means resolutions against atrocities(NBC) and 'peacekeeping' missions could be interesting. Gives the sec-gen the ability to trounce around the world without worrying about ROP.