Variable peace treaty lengths???

[futurehermit]

I was thinking about this today:

What do you think it would be like if the game was changed so that peace treaty lengths were negotiable???

So, an AI gives one mediocre tech and the length is 5 or 10 turns, but if they give everything they got, maybe the length is 20-50 turns?

Here are a couple scenarios where I think it would be good:

Earlyish in the game, the AI is reduced to 1-2 cities. However, there is a lot of land. If they gave all their tech to get 20-50 turns of peace, they have a chance to found some cities and get some units in place, maybe able to compete with the aggressor who's strung-out a bit economically.

A bit later in the game, the AI is again in dire straits. However, they are getting close to feudalism. So, they give away all their tech to get 20 turns of peace, which is enough time to finish feudalism and then offer themselves as a vassal to the most powerful civilization--thus protecting their small empire from annihilation.

I would rather see these kind of things than an AI going to its grave, refusing to trade any techs for 10 turns of peace knowing it will only get wiped out anyways.

It would also mean that there is some strategy that goes into getting peace. Do you want the extra tech offered by the AI but then the AI gets to live a lot longer? Or do you want to finish them off sooner, but you get less tech in return?

What do you think? Why 10 turns as a magical number?

 

[Dnomal]

I think what you're skriting around is the idea of a non-agression pact, so you and the AI sign a treaty saying you won't go to war during the pact.

I think this feature would be good, along with the whole increased peace traty length, except for the problem that some Civ's *cough* Mansa, would grovel and offer some good techs for 100 turns, and somepeople would take it not realising they couldn't attack at all....

 

[futurehermit]

I'm not skirting around it at all, it's what I'm talking about: A non-aggression pact, which is basically what a peace-treaty is in this game.

People might make that mistake once, but not twice unless they're not too bright

I just think it would make the game a bit more realistic on the part of the AI. You're facing annihilation, but have some good tech in the bank. Why not negotiate a longish peace treaty to try and sustain your shattered empire. Wouldn't any good leader do that for his/her people???

 

[PericlesOfAthen]

Variable peace treaty terms is a great idea. I always get annoyed when you are annihilating an AI and they refuse to give any decent techs to get peace. Variable peace treaties would be balanced in giving an AI a chance to recover while also being more realistic in allowing the victor more spoils . It could also be a real help for human players at higher levels. Monty launch an annoying continental invasion while you are rushing for spacerace victory? Make a 50 term peace treaty with him with old techs.

The only reason I can think that civ developers didn't add this feature is that it could be difficult to code AI behavior to know when is a good peace treaty term. Really though it shouldn't be much more complicated than coding AI war tactics.

 

[futurehermit]

Yeah I agree on all counts. It would be good for the human player at higher levels as well. Negotiate a long peace treaty with Monty or Shaka to keep them off your back in order to survive. Kinda sucks to have "game over" when they declare on you with a whole mess of troops before you're ready.

 

[Dan Quale]

Something like this has been mentioned for beyond the sword. Involving the Apostolic palace, creating a "dont attack me" resolution of sorts. Looking at this from a warmonger's perspective, it sounds like a great aggravation. Sure a tech bonus is nice, but seeing that "cannot declare war" when you look at that name, never gets any less frustrating.

 

[varus]

And why can't we violate treaties?
I've never wondered why we couldn't pull and old fashion American tactic and simply not do what we said we would.

Hey! Peace for 25 turns in exchange for IW?
Sure!
10 turns later: "Time to die"

 

[futurehermit]

^^^How would you like Monty to do that to YOU on the higher levels???

 

[frob2900]

Longer peace treaties would be a better idea. The 10 turn peace period is pretty much just the time I need to regroup/reposition my "horde of doom", so that it doesnt really benefit the "target" AI at all..

It seems that the AI is more reasonable than humans in that it does not attack immediately after a 10 turn peace treaty is over and it still holds a large power advantage..

 

[PericlesOfAthen]

Strange I don't know if it has to do with different styles of play but usually I don't have this problem of the 10 turns being too long. Usually I take out the entire civ and make no treaty or I grab half their cities then peace treaty and get my economy developed to handle the new cities and get other advanced troops to finish them off. Besides what we're talking about here is the option to have long peace treaties we're not saying you'd be forced to make a long peace treaty. It would be negotiable. If you want more lucrative techs from the AI they could demand a longer peace treaty otherwise stick with 10 turns and their measly tech like archery or sailing.

 

[futurehermit]

Yes, don't negotiate a long peace treaty if you don't want to.

 

[Softnum]

And why can't we violate treaties?
I've never wondered why we couldn't pull and old fashion American tactic and simply not do what we said we would.

Why does everyone on this board assume that America is the only country that has ever violated a treaty?

Apart from that, I see this as game balance. Otherwise you would ALWAYS extort techs from a Civ right before crushing them. By making you wait 10 turns, that's the 'cost' of that tech you extorted.