Ideas for the deeper diplomatic options?
Im excited for the deeper diplomacy i was thinking maybe something like say some other nation gets domnated by a tornado or something and if u send units to the city it helps regenerate happiness and rebuild the lost buildings over time in turn it boosts relations. Little things like that i think would be awesome. Maybe have natural disasters worse so it'll bring more diplomatic options. Any ideas?
Sounds a lot like the random events that are already in Civ4:BTS
yeah but make them more in depth like there just kinda simple like o u lost ur theatre or ur mine or wutever make it more like devastating not everyone but like here and there have this ridiculous hurricane or something
I LOVED the random events in Beyond the Sword. I really hope they make a return in Civ V.
I loved the random events too, but I wish that they would give us options.
Take "plane crash" for example; we should have the option to settle it peacefully (earn diplomatic points) or perhaps salvage the wreck for top secret information / new tech (ie reverse engineer). It could either have a positive impact on diplomatic relations, neutral impact, or negative impact -- much in the same way SimCity 4 allowed the mayor to do minigames in order to earn town prestige or cash (with a negative impact on town prestige).
I too really hope they expand upon random events and tie them further into diplomatic relations. Even in BTS, I can't remember how many times it was a random event that drew me into a tight relationship with a civilization I was passe to before.
I'd like to see intelligence trading become a big part of international diplomacy
Yes, Espionage, Corporations and Random Events where great ideas but need to be reworked.
As for new diplomacy options I would love to see bounties, like "1000 for anyone who declares war on THIS civilization" or so on. I think Galactic Civs did something like this and I enjoyed it.
1. Trade borders via diplomacy (i.e. I'll give you 5000 gold for those 3 hexes)
2. Purchase existing units from other players or ask them to produce new units for you (for not only gold but tech or resources). For example, I'm a tech powerhouse and you're a production powerhouse... let's make a deal for you to produce some units for me.
3. I'd like to see the open borders agreements expanded. For example, maybe have 2 types of open borders, one for trade and one for military unit passage. How many times has a friendly AI that I've been at peace with for 1000 years let my enemies walk right through his territory to attack me, and he won't accept my proposal to cancel the open borders with my enemy...at any price.
3-a. Wouldn't it be cool if you could charge gold to allow military units to pass through your territory? Didn't this happen during the Iraq war with Turkey? I think the U.S. promised to give Turkey a certain amount of economic aid if we could fly transport planes over their country.
4. Work together with another player to discover a technology faster. Maybe this wouldn't be available until later in the game.
5. Ask an ally to attack or bombard a certain city.
6. Make the AI forgive and forget a little bit faster. Why is it that they remember that I traded with their enemy 100 turns ago and that will keep them from trading a tech or something else with me? Civs should easily forgive past transgressions if it's in their economic or strategic interests.
7. Has anyone ever been able to get an AI to trade a city to them? Why is it even an option?
8. Threaten to use nukes in exchange for something. For example, "Surrender and accept these terms or else I'm going to use my nukes".
9. Expand on the international treaties options provided by Apostolic Palace and United Nations. For example, all members pay a membership fee and then they can choose to deploy (if the vote succeeds) peace keeping troops to any region.
Nice ideas Gordy!
To add to your 4th point I think it would also to be cool to collaborate on some world wonders - mostly modern ones. Manhattan and Apollo spring to mind but I'm sure there are others that would be mutually beneficial for allies.
4, permanent alliance does this
Originally Posted by fatgordy
5, you already can,
7 you need to have some culture in the chosen city enough for them to liberate or trade it.
8. this is utterly stupid, the AI already threatens you moronically already. putting a constant consequence of nuclear mosquitoes wont help them either.
Haha.. Well thanks. What are your ideas?
Originally Posted by Lami
4 - Yes but permanent alliances have to be set in game setup and can't arise organically. It also forces alliance for military as well as science. There may be several techs, like democracy that civs x and y both need and dont care about others getting really so let them work together for that and that alone - i.e. not a permanent alliance
Originally Posted by Lami
5 - Can you, really? I thought all you could do was get them to declare war on another civ and then most of the time they dont even send over any units, making the whole exercise expensive and fairly pointless. Seriously, if there's a way to direct allied civs to attack or bombard this or that then I desperately want to know how that is done - it would change the way I play civ IV
7 - Right sure, but in practice city trading is never negotiable unless you've knocked a civ back to one or two cities through war. A civ will never allow you to trade techs or gold for a city, even if it's mostly yours, it's costing them a fortune & they'll probably lose it to culture in a few turns anyway.
8 - it's not utterly stupid but you're right it wouldn't really enhance the game much
I've always wanted the ability to adopt certain global doctrines, such as:
1: Manifest Destiny: I want to be able to declare to the world that I consider my continent to be (Deity)'s gift to my civilization and that building any cities or colonies upon it will be considered an act of war. To be done properly, AI civs would need to actually consider this consequence before plopping a city down in the tundra for that one silver resource.
2: Unrestricted Naval Warfare: I'd like to be able to unleash my naval forces in neutral areas without a declaration of war. Of course, this would anger other civs and if it were used too many times they might declare a real war.
3: Anti-Settling Treaties: Borders are open to military units but no Settlers (or Transport units).
4: Nonproliferation: I'd like to be able to declare the creation of nuclear weapons to be a war-worthy event. This can be role-played right now, but AIs don't really care about that. Bonus points if you can play the jerk and have your own nuclear weapons while insisting that no one else does.
You can see where this is going. I think it would be cool. I don't expect everyone else to, and I really doubt we'll see it in Civ anytime soon.
These are all great ideas. I particularly like non-settler open Borders and declaring that certain actions are acts of war. I hate it when a civ comes and plinks a crappy city down on MY continent and then complains to me that our close borders spark tensions! Who's fault is that, *******?
Unrestricted naval warfare I'm keen on too. It is something iv said I'd like in the form of more privateer ships in another thread
I would also like to see some sort of diplomatic enforcment on multiplayer games. The main reasons Multiplayer games are not as rich and thrilling as single-player games are - is the complete lack of a functioning diplomacy mechanic. After all, players are allowed to deal with other players however they please - but you are quite unlikely to ever vote for someone else for a diplomatic victory.
Considering that leaders are constantly replaced as time progresses (though it does not show in the game), it should be considered that the relations between two civs is not decided solely by their current leaders, but by their respective history as a people. This brings two ideas:
for single and multiplayer: Certain greviwences that were caused by the decisions of a "leader" should slowly diminish in their importance and impact as time passes from the moment of their conception. For example: As a "leader", I decide to cease trade with a certain other civ. 200 turns later (that's about 8 generations), both civilizations are now being led by completely different leaders than 200 turns ago - why should their relations be hampered by decisions of minor impact made centuries ago?
Naturally, leaders need not really be "replaced" during the game, it's merely a theme idea.
second: following the first idea, certain events that impact relations are not caused by the leaders of those civilizations - but by the people. Be it acts of random kindness or, of course, war. These decisions, though usually decided upon by the player, should have a lasting impact that forces the player to adhere to - even in multyplayer. Meaning the game should actually keep track of past events between you and other players during multiplayer, and prevent you from certain diplomatic options - or even force you to choose some, during gameplay. So if you want to be able to trade map and tech with another player, that means you need to play nice with him - and keep in mind that later on, when it comes time to vote, you might be forced to vote for him - since your people are in favor of him.
This also made me consider another option - replacable leaders during gameplay. A custom option that triggers a leaders' "death" every couple dozen turns which marks the end of his dynasty and "concept of leadership", bringing a new era to the civilization. Perhaps this could trigger whenever an era passes within the game (so that makes it what, 6-7 times?). Each time an era passes, you are given a choice between several types of leaders (historically accurate to the civilization being played) which will lead you civ in a complete new direction. Their abilities will be different, they will provide special unit\building that reflect your current era, obsoleteing your starting special unit\building (which should be made relevant only to the first era with this option). When this happens, many diplomacy-affecting past-event will also be rendered obsolete with other civs and perhaps even events that caused your OWN civ to be unhappy will be forgotten (such as the experimental drugs, or use of slavery).
An extremely unhappy civilization might also attempt to trigger a revolution on its' own, forcing you to play with a leader with no abilities\unique units until you are able to restore peace\advance an era.
Originally Posted by fatgordy
But just like in real life, a nation won't give away population centers easily. Usually, if you are at war and winning against another CIV untill the point where they beg for peace, you can get them to give you cities (and sometimes, ALL of their income by turn).
When you wining a war with a ally(s) you should do negotiation with you ally(s) against the enemy(ies), and not doing it separately.
I'm Talking an a status that your ally(s) isn't in a Permanent Ally of you and have been added to war by your request or from other reasons
Last edited by Dostayer; 02-24-2010 at 05:26 AM.
Personally I’d like to see the reduction of penalty for refusal to give in to demands. Most of the time, when I get a demand I have no idea if I should give away a tech or some resource. So I always say “no”. Well almost always. They should make it so you can review settings/trade agreements before agreeing to a demand. An advisor screen would be handy one that gives you options such as:
You should do this their army is big and bad
Tell him to buzz off we aren't scared of him
Tell him ok for now but his demand has lowered our relations and he better watch his back!
Relations between two civs isn't simply how the leaders feel about each other, it’s the populace. Spanish American war was fought because the people of America were determined to fight not the leadership. The populace should have some influence on diplomatic options.
Your people demand you stop trading with the vile French
Do so and get happy people
Refuse and get angry mobs
I’d like to see the removal of the close border tension... America and Canada have a really long border and no tension due to the border. unless you count the war of 1812 but Canada wasn't really Canada then I think it should be based on other factors like troop buildup or lawlessness on the border.
Open borders should come in different flavors – I don’t think my enemy should be able to attack my troops in an alley’s town. The enemy should have to declare war on the that enemy or have
Trade embargos on specific items or industries
Immigration – with specific ramifications to diplomacy
nothing more frustrating than one of your allies suddely becoming a vassal of your enemy. it would be nice if they contacted you first and said
Originally Posted by Dostayer
they have offered us peace in exchage for : XXXX
then you could reply with better options or let them go
I want to see smarter AI. More balanced.
i have some ideas that would be cool if they made it to the civ V
battle plans. this was in SMAC just add some more depth and detail. allow human and ai players to suggest to each other where they should move their units.(hex aab123 to hex aab122) what cities/other units to attack or whether the unit should hold for a certain amount of turns or disband/build/etc.
shared research development this was in SMAC but was 1 sided. the ai would suggest to the human what research to develop next. allow both the ai and human to do this. but add some depth and detail. friends allies and masters can offer suggestions on what to research.
vassals allow masters more control over there vassal. fix the master pays vassals expenses. allow both human and ai player to be vassals. allow the master to set funding levels, what to research next, were the vassals units move on the map,whether they attack a city or enemy unit or hold for a number of turns. or build a road or farm/mine etc
One dimension is trade relationship. It should be higher level than trade about exceed resources as in civ iv. See my post here http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/sho...4&postcount=23
I hope that would allow so many popups for "micro" trading.
One other missing stuff is unified commands of army that leads to poor value of vassals / allies or convincing someone to go to war with you. And crazy stuff such as you vassal capturing a city because he killed the last enemy troop.
My thinking is that you should be able to negotiate with several leaders for war campaign preparation. You should choose them carefully, because they could leak the info to your enemy. Then you could negotiate they go to war with you when you declare war and a number of troops they will lend you for the duration of war. You will command them as if they were yours. Your allies during this war campaign can ask for protecting one of their city, lend more troops, get some troops back to protect themselves or even quit the alliance. This would be automatic when making peace with the enemy. You can also request supplementary effort during the war campaign. You would decide to which country each conquered city goes. A mistake and you could have the alliance down. Diplomatic advisor would be good here.
War tactic would then rely much more on diplomatic relationship. Apostolic palace would make much more sense with the possibility for its members to launch a crusade.
When a civ is your vassal they would have no choice than follow you in a war effort (as it is in civ iv) and you could force recruiting some troops.
United Nations would also completely fit this united command system. We could have other supranational organizations, such as NATO or Communist countries. In UN, each country could contribute troops that would be stamped as peacekeepers. They could only defend or attack an attacking troop in the same turn. Civ secretary general for UN would lead the peace campaign. The campaign itself needs a successful vote. UN members could get their troops back any time or send some more. Of course there is a difference as UN does not declare war. So the secretary would do a defensive war without being at war! Quite cool.
One more dimension related to my previous post mentioned above is trade embargo. As troops would directly be involved in embargoes, you could decide the same way to build an alliance for embargo and manage it effectively. If pillage occurs, it would be shared among the allies with a bonus for the leader.
PS: one important thing is the ability to see battles of the troops you wouldn't command when they occur.
Last edited by Leokoko; 03-03-2010 at 06:36 AM.
What a great idea! I love it!!!
Originally Posted by fatgordy