World Wars

[deo]

I think adding world wars will be interesting.
You can also create alliances, If you are the leader you can give it a name and also you can invite a civ to your alliance, declare war an other alliance etc.
It could be like the real World War one or two. An Example:
In world war two Bulgaria and Romania Joined the Axis but in 1944 I think they joined the Allied. Also in Civ 3 you can create alliances with more than two members only in the editor, and you must declare war if you want to make an Alliance. In Civ 4 i think The Murtal Protection Pact should be removed and if a civ attacks any member of your alliance than you will declare war to the civ that has attacked your partner, but you can refuse to declare war to that civ but you will be banned from the alliance (even if you were the leader) and your relationship with the civs of that alliance will drop.
Also if you are the leader of the alliance that has won a war agassing another alliance you can offer peace and demanding something form the defeated alliance to any other civ of your alliance.
For example you can demand some cities, normally this exist in civ 3 but you can't demand cities to your alliance members like the conference of Versailles
You can also set a limit of building something like after world war one that only America and England could build the biggest ships

 

[Garbarsardar.jr]

As to the first part of your idea(alliances etc) I cannot see many things that are not already possible in the game.

IMHO the second idea-rectrictions imposed on the defeated side as part of a peace treaty-is much more interesting.A possible way to implement it would be an expanded negotiations menu with turn-specific demands that could restrict the AI or the player to specific types of building( de-militarization).

 

[BassDude726]

I think it would be cool if, once a war reached a certain level of development, it could be declared a world war. Like if 75% of the civs on the map were fighting one another, a world war screen could come up in which you could align yourself with other civs depending on what their perceived objectives were, and work toward a common goal. Like a military alliance, but not as formal.

 

[deo]

My last idea appeared not only after world war one.Also Rome set a limit to carthage after the first punic war to give all of his ships Rome.Than the seafaring civ had only 10 ships...

 

[Milan's Warrior]

i think the idea of a word war is very cool
I define a world war as a war in which all civs partecipate

As far as I understand it, it is not possible to create a world war in . You can create an alliance with n civilizations against all the others, but there is no way of making the others collaborate among themselves.

 

[The Yankee]

I think there should be situations where there could be an organized alliance. Yes, we have world wars now, but they're usually free-for-alls in which MPPs turn on each other too quickly so it ends up with each nation at war with everyone else, who is at war with everyone else, and so on.

And demands for a peace treaty aside from technology and money would be great (as well as a unified front for peace for an organized alliance in a war, rather than separate negotiations which usually end up betraying some ally). Military restrictions, either number of units or types of units or even preventing units from entering certain areas (could be done by forbidding soldiers in the culture areas of certain cities, to simulate getting them off some large island near your territories or something), restrictions to military technology, giving the victor unlimited access to patrolling areas (within a culture border or the entire nation, like a one-sided ROP)and probably other options as well.

 

[Dr. Broom]

I like the idea of restricting a nation's army to a certain size and to certain units, it would add a whole new playing style to the game where you wouldn't always have to completely erradicate civs but could de-militarize them instead.

As for organized alliances where it isn't a MPP free for all, I think this can be tied together with the need for the AI to work toward a goal other than just taking opportunistic targets. For example Germany(AI) is a moderately powerful nation although not a superpower and France is nearby but France(Human) is a very small weak nation. Everything is fine though as Germany isn't trying to attack you and you have good relations. One day Russia(AI) comes in from unexplored territory and clearly has very powerful army and attacks you! Now if the AI were more goal oriented then Germany would come to your aid to preserve the balance of power in the area but with the current, selfish, over-opportunistic AI Germany would just attack you before Russia gets all your land and then likely be taken over by Russia at a later date.
I know it isn't always this way but similar situations have happened to me quite a few times.

Anyway if it were more goal oriented an alliance of civilizations would be bound by more than an MPP, they would all be working toward a common goal whether it be balance of power or tipping the power scale in their favor.

 

[sampedestal]

goal-oriented allies r very cool. i believe SMAC had a similar thing, but it was only with one ally and i don't remember it working too well. there would need to be far more options than SMAC had.

 

[SilverKnight]

Great ideas, except for the actual feasibility. Could it be programmed? We're talking REAL Artificial Intelligence, not the stupid, aggressive AI's of past CIVs. Could an AI head a "peace-keeping coalition," or an alliance for war? Is it possible to make a moderately powerful AI think sensibly and not forcefully?

I take it we all assume that these new diplomacy abilities start in the Industrial Ages/ Civ4 equivalent, since this is when all the big "world wars" started? What if we limited these new diplomatic ideas to merely group alliances, group declarations of war, and group peace treaties?

Because a fellow AI ally might demand 80% of the loser's city's, quite reasonably...

 

[Ant509y]

When it comes to a 'world war' mode, I really don't think that that in particular is necessarry. It shouldn't be some strange new mode. It wasn't in real life. It was simply a war, albeit a HUGE war. However, the other ideas are quite good. Group declarations of war, group peace treaties, treties with terms, for example demilitarization. Also, even in the real world wars, there were shifts in alliances. Enemies sometimes became allies, or allies became enemies. At the beginning of in WWII the Soviets and the Nazis were allies. Therefor, in my view, treaties should still be breakable, though it should have stronger reprecussions.

And any improvement on the A.I. is welcome. Especially giving it priorities and long term goals, like the hypothetical Germany/Russia/France scenario above.

 

[stormbind]

World wars do happen, all the time.

I think there should be special note in the game when there's clearly a 2-way split between all civs... and mark that situation as a WW... whereby the first civ to achieve absolute peace (for their civ) gets to build a Small Wonder: War Memorial.

Or something like that

 

[Dr. Broom]

Great ideas, except for the actual feasibility. Could it be programmed? We're talking REAL Artificial Intelligence, not the stupid, aggressive AI's of past CIVs. Could an AI head a "peace-keeping coalition," or an alliance for war? Is it possible to make a moderately powerful AI think sensibly and not forcefully?

I think it is very possible, maybe not the way we want it but it can be much better. The AI just needs to think more for its own civ and less in its sort of "AI club" mentality, I'm sure you all know what I mean. Europa Universalis II did a fairly good job with this, it is certainly better than in civ III and Europa Universalis isn't even a new game so it should be possible.

 

[deo]

Yes Eu2 has many great things such as group alliances, manpower, annexing, vassalation, trade centers etc. also the number under the solider represents se number of mans that has the army. The only thing that Eu2 hasn’t is the strategy depth

 

[deo]

I have another Idea for world wars:
You have and alliance of six members and one civ of that is a member of another Alliance attacked your partner. Normally now you will declare war to that civ but you refused to declare war and so you have been banned from that alliance, your relationships dropped and the power fullest civ of that alliance is now the leader and so you joined the another alliance, declared war to your ex-alliance and now you started the great war.

 

[nameless53]

i caused a world war once...


2 locked alliences
4 neutral

i spied on someone.. failed.. got into war

allie kicked in.. so did his

both allies of both allience recruited others
one declared war here... MA there.. another one

i signed peace treaty... only to redeclare war..

ALL nations draged in..
once in a while one drops out but comes back 2 turns later.. it was strange
infact.. some switched sides..

all this chaos from spying...

 

[deo]

I caused a smilar war due to MPP. I declared war to Rome but didn't know that rome was in a MPP with the Ottomans, I had A MPP with america, America with Russia... Only the Scandianvians and England were at peace, 14 other civs were at war. After a 32 turn war 5 civs were destroyed and after about 10 i won through UN

 

[sir_schwick]

Real world wars are not much less chaotic. Personally I think the AI should use a couple new systems of deciding long-term/short-term goals.

The first priority is ensuring immediate security. That means they will look at where they are most vunerable and will try to cover those vulnerabilities.

Once immediate vulnerability is lower, the AI should look at who is the most dangerous nation-state that can attack them. They then have two options.

1) Raise their relative power to the leader(conquer smaller guy, gain trade advantage).
2) Reduce relative power of the leader(aggressive behavior towards leader).

If there is a clear leader in a region(France in 1800) then the other nations will all be aligned against them. They may even be allies, so they can expand without serious threat. Eventually one of the powers will grow to threaten France, or France will become so powerful that the other nations must take care of them.

The leader has different proiorities. They must prevent from becoming the most immediate threat. That means encouraging conflicts between other nations. You also need to keep any one nation from gaining a lot of relative power. This means encouraging aggression against growing nations.

I think this rule set would make bigger nations utilize diplomacy and arms supoort more.

 

[Hunter]

I have found that many of my games include atleast one WW type battle and I love them. They generaly start happening around the time civs can use MPP but I have had them before that time period. As for battle field planing I would like to see this expanded. I realized this the other night when I fought a world war against China (the most poserful civ on the map) and found myself fighting on a battle field with all my allies, it was most impresive. Perhaps there could be an option for MPP members to vote on what city or direction to attack. And when a peace treaty is ofered by the enemy all members of the MPP could vote on it or add demands to it. I think that if you are losing you should still be able to leave the MPP and sign a seperate peace treaty (possibly taking a rep hit). As for peace treaties having a option for unit limits for a set amount of turns would be great.

 

[Mr. Will]

It would be interesting if you could build unit that are illegal to you, as long as the other civs don't see them. This would give the one-sided rop a good point and allow some realism, as in real life countries with weapon restrictions still build the weapons some time, i.e. Iraq, Nazi Germany...
Also, if you catch the Civ in the act of rebuilding his army, you can declare war and make harsher limits or take interim control of the country.

 

[phorvath2110]

It would be interesting if you could build unit that are illegal to you, as long as the other civs don't see them. This would give the one-sided rop a good point and allow some realism, as in real life countries with weapon restrictions still build the weapons some time, i.e. Iraq, Nazi Germany...
Also, if you catch the Civ in the act of rebuilding his army, you can declare war and make harsher limits or take interim control of the country.

Actually I think making "arms restrictions" available for peace treaties would a really cool. This would be more realistic and hopefully keep annoying civs from acting up too much (a la Zulus!)