Why Only 2 First Contact Options?

Darkhour

Warlord
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
165
Location
Melbourne, Australia
I would like to know why there are only 2 First Contact options, peace or war?


Why not a state of transition?.. like the special peace (?) for 10 turns or so?.. I mean it's kind of unrealistic to presume 2 civs to be instantly at long time peace on initial contact..
 
Why? Because there are only 2 states... You are either at war or you are at peace.

Any other state is just a special case of one of those 2. And really, do honestly feel there should be an option for "Lets be at peace right now, but we are going to go to war in 10 years"? Or "Lets fight for a few years, but plan on it ending in 5 years"?
 
Yes I do... You may say there is only war or peace but that is to assume that you need one to have the other which would be the truth.

BUT I would argue that at first contact you should have a 3rd option of using a ''politically ambiguous status quo' which would cater for the such that don't wish the to use the first two options which would require an 'ágreement'. The 3rd option does not.

Whether that state is written into the game OR substituted for 'peace for 10 turns'.. that is my point.. :goodjob:
 
Uhmm... That's what *peace* is right now.

I mean, at that stage, you don't have any open borders or trade, so it really is a "politically ambigous status quo".
 
Also, notice that the peace response is "There shall be peace in our time." I expect the writers intended this with all the ironic consequences that followed it's first utterance by Neville Chamberlain. Basically, what it now means is, "If you think there's going to be peace, boy are you whistling in the dark."
 
Maksim said:
Uhmm... That's what *peace* is right now.

I mean, at that stage, you don't have any open borders or trade, so it really is a "politically ambigous status quo".

No... because that peace represents the same peace throughout the game which is exactly what I am saying above... and yet there is 'cease fire' which makes sense AND 'special peace' for 10 turns or so also.. I would tend to think that this peace would be the closest game state in translation..
 
Gordon Farrell said:
Also, notice that the peace response is "There shall be peace in our time." I expect the writers intended this with all the ironic consequences that followed it's first utterance by Neville Chamberlain. Basically, what it now means is, "If you think there's going to be peace, boy are you whistling in the dark."

I also understand your statement Gordon and I agree but thats also the point I'm making above.. there is no distinguishment and ingame relations can suffer on that point..
 
Just exactly how would this "politically ambiguous status quo" of your function in game terms. In other words how would it actuall differ from Peace or War.
 
zyphyr said:
Just exactly how would this "politically ambiguous status quo" of your function in game terms. In other words how would it actuall differ from Peace or War.

Maybe just the state it tends to represent.. - 'Contact'

That would be enough to signify contact with no dipolmatic agreements set which could changed at any time... and there for you could attack roaming armies around your borders without setting off war until it was decreed by one party maybe... :goodjob:
 
In Birth of the Federation, when you initially met someone, you were in this state. You had "contacted" each other. If you attacked each other, well that would hurt reps and stuff....but you could go where you wanted and do what you wanted. If you want peace (first level peace was a non-agression treaty) then you had to negotiate it.

It would basically not allow the other to enter your territory, and you ships would pass through squares in neutral territory without attacking. But if there were a 3 player battle, then you could attack others in the combat.

There were two other states of peace as well (IIRC), friendship (trade benefits) and (military) alliance. The final allowing you to share infrastructure and pass territory.

There is room for more in Civ...but I don't think it's necessary...
 
I'd also like to see the chance to NOT see auto negotiation window.
What happened to the option of rejecting the envoy? Refusing to see him and everything.

I'd find this especially useful during turn changes. As they seem to be the first thing that pops up, meanwhile several other important turn change actions are happening, and I miss it all because of the negotiation window opening up.
 
CornMaster said:
In Birth of the Federation, when you initially met someone, you were in this state. You had "contacted" each other. If you attacked each other, well that would hurt reps and stuff....but you could go where you wanted and do what you wanted. If you want peace (first level peace was a non-agression treaty) then you had to negotiate it.

It would basically not allow the other to enter your territory, and you ships would pass through squares in neutral territory without attacking. But if there were a 3 player battle, then you could attack others in the combat.

There were two other states of peace as well (IIRC), friendship (trade benefits) and (military) alliance. The final allowing you to share infrastructure and pass territory.

There is room for more in Civ...but I don't think it's necessary...

Thats pretty much what I'm talking about.. :) But to include a new state would take the SDK and changing the first contact dialogue you should be able to mod the python to allow... am i correct?.
 
Hi there.. long time between drinks and I thought I'd revisit Civ 4 and find out if anyone has made any progress on any mods etc.. towards this idea? :)
 
Maybe just the state it tends to represent.. - 'Contact'

That would be enough to signify contact with no dipolmatic agreements set which could changed at any time... and there for you could attack roaming armies around your borders without setting off war until it was decreed by one party maybe... :goodjob:

If you can attack each other, isn't it just the same as a state of war? I can't think of any kingdom, republic, or anything else that would have ever been OK with its forces being attacked. Such things mean war, or at least, a severing of diplomatic relations.

Peace is just absence of war. It doesn't (by itself) include any particular agreements. You don't have to trade resources, sign open border agreements, or anything else. Peace in the absence of an open border agreement or any trade deals is just basic, simple contact.
 
ok without going into semantics or continuing the debate, lets just look for example to historical battles where armies suddenly disappear when they're out and about as such...

The idea is the ability to attack enemy units without entering into war outside of borders. not attack cities or forts etc..

This would basically be a '(non) aggressive pact'. I suppose the easiest way to set this up would be as an option added onto 'peace' that is automatically optioned on. On diplomacy you may then sign a non aggressive pact that ensures no attacking enemy units...

On second thoughts I suppose maybe giving all units, although I haven't explored this option since returning, the ability of a 'privateer'.. ?

The next question on top of this is whether or not the AI would take advantage of this..
 
ok without going into semantics or continuing the debate, lets just look for example to historical battles where armies suddenly disappear when they're out and about as such...

For instance?

All the examples I can think of would be lost to the elements, or perhaps to tribal groups (eg barbarians).
 
well I believe you'd have to be ignorant if you believed that no army has ever been destroyed by an opposing side under the guise of peace... if it's assassins, envoys, vassals etc.. there is no doubt that history has cases of aggressive acts concealed to eliminate threat etc.. but still maintain peace. If this automatically lowered relations and made a pretext for war etc. this would make sense in game.
 
well I believe you'd have to be ignorant if you believed that no army has ever been destroyed by an opposing side under the guise of peace

Yes, but that isn`t the same as what you`re proposing. You`re proposing that they be allowed to do that and then not be at war, which isn`t what happens in the real world. Even in the ancient world, if you attacked somebody`s army, you came to be at war. You might get away with attacking scouts or explorers ... maybe even envoys ... but not ships or armies. And if the game were set such that explorers and scouts could be attacked outside their borders without repercussion, they would become a useless unit.

I still can`t think of a single example of this: ``lets just look for example to historical battles where armies suddenly disappear when they're out and about as such...`` as a result of hostile action by another major power (as I say, maybe as a result of the elements or tribal groups or such) without a state of war occuring. Can you provide one?
 
If you can attack each other, isn't it just the same as a state of war? I can't think of any kingdom, republic, or anything else that would have ever been OK with its forces being attacked. Such things mean war, or at least, a severing of diplomatic relations.

frekk said:
You might get away with attacking scouts or explorers ... maybe even envoys ... but not ships or armies...
I still can`t think of a single example of this...

http://www.usmm.org/fdr/kearny.html

"We have wished to avoid shooting. But the shooting has started. And history has recorded who fired the first shot. In the long run, however, all that will matter is who fired the last shot. America has been attacked. The U.S.S. Kearny is not just a Navy ship. She belongs to every man, woman, and child in this Nation."
-- President Roosevelt, October 27, 1941

The Kearny was torpedoed on the high seas by a German U-boat during October; war with Germany did not break out until after Pearl Harbor in December, when Hitler declared war on the U.S.

Admittedly, this is a very specific circumstance that did eventually lead to war, but I think the "gray area" between war and peace would at least be useful for a few scenarios, like WWI and WWII. In both cases the delayed response of full-scale war was more a result of the isolationism of the American population than anything else, but it would be a valid example in the context of a democratic civic in Civ 4. It also hard to see how the Kearny incident would have played out were it not for the attack on Pearl Harbor. It probably would've led to war with Germany, but without Japan's declaration of war, it is not crystal-clear when this would've happened. In the meantime, however, plenty of engagements with U-boats would've taken place.

I can also immediately think of Saddam Hussein's repeated firing on U.S. warplanes patrolling the No-Fly Zones in Iraq during the late 1990's. It was not an all-out war, but there was definitely shooting, and equipment on both sides was lost.

Perhaps the only way to replicate this in the game would be to limit it to naval and air combat, sort of like with privateers, but even then it would still be useful only in very specific circumstances. That doesn't mean it's a bad idea, though, just that I wouldn't necessarily want it in the epic game.
 
Back
Top Bottom