All Diplomacy related ideas will go here:

I don't have much time to discuss this in detail, but I feel that there should be more to diplomacy than in previous Civ games. In Civ3 right now you are basically either at peace or at war. Granted there is 'feelings' towards each Civ, but they simply don't play a big enough role. I believe that there should be levels of engagement, such as cease-fire, allied peace, neutral, etc.. I'll go into detail later on.

I couldn't agree with this more. There definitely needs to be something beyond merely "allied" for instance. Historically, allies could change sides pretty easily (hello, Italy!), but there needs to be something the signifies a deep and resounding friendship and trust between two Civs. 

For instance, American and Britain wouldn't go to war together, not even if Britain could take on America. Why? The Americans and Britains are friends and allies, and largely see many basic things the same. Something like this would make it so that you can have some allies you are certain of, and othes you are wary of. I think it would be fair to penalize players that break such alliances with the universal loathing and mistrust of all other Civs, though you should be able to back out of it bit by bit.

I am sure you can see many other levels of interest there could be.
Drachasor

Good day.

1 Unit Trading
~Allow unit trading
-general consensus for the list-

1.1 Unit Trading
~Unit trading for a certain number of turns
gopher

What about just letting you trade the capability to build X number of units instead of trading units for a specified number of terms? The trader of the ability would cover any strategic resource requirement, unless otherwise bargained. This would allow you to control how many tanks some other Civ has, if they don't have the tech/SR to build it, for example. It is also pretty realistic and less of a hassle than unit trading for a duration (for the units may die or be disbanded)
Drachasor

~establishing claims for various tiles or areas
gopher

This would be a bit tricky. There are claims and there are claims. This might be hard to fit into bargaining algorithms too. It is a nice idea, but I have trouble seeing a clean interface for it (which I think is important).
Drachasor

~Give us casus belli and stability to prevent too much backstabbing and making long-term diplomatic planning an option.
statusperfect

Perhaps being able to label part of a treaty with "casus belli enforced," so that breaking that can lead to War? If so there needs to be a "no trespass" agreement that you can apply this with, and the AI needs to be careful about following such agreements
Drachasor

~Make the game show via the foreign advisor what you can do to increase relations with civs you have bad casus belli with.
statusperfect

~You need to be able to ask for anything in diplomacy.
Lorizael

~You should be able to get a civilization to sign a peace treaty with another civilization or ask that a civilization stop building certain kinds of units.
Lorizael

Yup, a nuclear missle ban pact should be possible, and odd pacts like tha with other units as well (no subs, perhaps).
Drachasor

~Keep the bargaining table. It was superb.
Optimizer

~You should also introduce some kind of vassalage, that could benefit both parts. The vassal civilization would pay maintenance for all units that the master civ stations in its territory, but the master suffers a great loss of reputation if the vassal loses any city to an enemy.
Optimizer

~Haggling is nice, but stick a limit on it. Make it so you can haggle 3 times per turn to get it right, and if you do not accept on the third turn, there is a 5-10 turn diplomacy blackout on that matter
hexagonian

Ehh, I am fine with the 3 deals, but if it goes south you should just have to wait 1 turn. That' enough of a punishment (especially if you are trying to get a tech or something else vital).
Drachasor

~Get rid of the trade "advisor" who allows you to get the best deal possible down to the last gpt.
Fosse

~Multilateral diplomacy is a MUST. Both as a UN in the late game, and as three or more at one table throughout the game.
Fosse

~Surrender needs to be put back in (from SMAC)
Fosse

~durations of things need to be negotiable: Why 20 turns for every deal? What if 15 would be better?
Fosse

Agreed, but it should stick to multiples of 5, I think, just for ease of use.
Drachasor

~1) Bargaining table format: first of all, like the previous post said: keep the overall negotiation format in Civ3. As in, requested techs/units/items/actions/etc. on one side and offered techs/etc. on the other.
J-S

~2) Additional items in bargaining table:

a) unit trade: when buying the unit you must specify the location/city where it should be delivered.
b) build city improvements: this is for having one civ build an imp "x" in it's city "y" for another civ's city "z". For example, suppose I cannot build a hospital yet but the chinese can. I can offer to pay them 100 gold for one of their cities to build a hospital in one of my cities. When a city is building an imp for another civ's city, in the queue a message will appear indicating this ("Hospital, 15 turns, for city x of the chinese"). When the imp is finished, the imp will appear in the other city and a message will appear. Ofcourse, the production cost of building imps for other cities will increase depending on the distance between the two cities.

How about 50 Gil and they give you the tools you need to build 1 hospital (you pick the city). Rather like my unit idea.
Drachasor

c) production/food trade: shields/food should be tradeable from one city to another. For example, I offer the Spanish to locate 100 shields per turn from Athens to Madrid in exchange for 200 gold.
d) terrain tiles: this way, the terrain tile chosen will become part of the civ's territory.
e) military bases: have a civ allow the installation of a millitary base (fortress) in one of their tiles in exchange for x gold.
J-S

~3) Automatic foreign relations manager: be able to have your foreign advisor manage the general aspects of the relations with other civs automatically, giving him general indications. For example, instruct him to "maintain good relations with the chinese". Then, if the chinese for some reason are beginning to distrust us or just start of as neutral, a message will appear advising the player to give them a gift, etc. Another function could be "negotiate trade of extra resources for best price", always confirming with the player to finish the transaction. As in, I have an extra iron on my hands, and the foreign relations manager would automatically negotiate with every civ the best possible price for that extra resource.
It's really tedious to have to check every turn for relations with each and every civ... and eventually I end up not talking to them unless it's for a get-that-damn-settler-outta-my-territory declarations.
J-S

Perhaps he should automatically tell you if something nebulous is causing a loss of respect. Sometimes it isn't having enough military, sometimes it is making a trade with someone else (you can be warned here). If it is just from falling behind somehow, then this advisor should tell you that is happening.

Best handled via Multi-nation diplomacy. You offer the Iron and ask for bids. That way you can exclude nations you don't like easily, and it is subsumed in another interface.
Drachasor

~If in the new civ game the diplomacy engine resembles the current model not in appearances but ability would be a major disappointment in my humble opinion.
Cras

~Unit Trading is a must
DarkCloud

~border agreements where the nations can trade land for units or land for cities, etc. and can basically carve out borders between each others nations
Darkcloud

This would have to be balanced with Culture in some way, I think.
Drachasor

~if there are going to be minor civs- I would suggest that the major civs can, if 2 or more of them discover the minor civs and the 2 are at peace with each other, carve out the land of the minor civ between them
DarkCloud

~Make it so you can do this with MAJOR civs as well (in reference to DarkCloud's above idea)
Skywalker

The allies did this Germany in WWII, so I don't see why it couldn't be done here. Interface might be a little tricky, but it is easier to carve out cities than it is to carve out territory (I think).
Drachasor

~To expand upon the whole idea of vassal states and imperialism and suggest, I suggest another diplomatic state to go along with war, peace, alliance, and those things.

You could demand that another civilization become a territory of yours. Once this happens, new diplomatic options are available to you. You would have the ability to gain access to certain parts of your territory's civilization. You could ask to control the construction of improvements, or military units, or their income sliders, their science, and other such things.

Great Idea, but control should be limited to no more than telling them how to build (e.g. defensive, infrastructure, offensive, general military, research, commerce, etc). Anything more should be handled by you outright taking them over.
Drachasor

This way you could simulate the ways in which civilizations control other civilizations without actually owning their cities.

While writing this I realized that few players (computer or AI) would ever actually agree to a situation like this. Because of that, there must be a way to threaten people during diplomatic negotiations.

If they maintain some control, and have the potential to be free again (my idea near the front of my post), then players might not like it, but would probably agree over annihilation. Otherwise a player would just quit.
Drachasor

You give me control of your industry.
I don't burn your capital and rape your women.
Lorizael

~You need a wonder (or facility, or something) like the Eiffel Tower or whatever it was that improved your reputation over time. The most annoying thing about Alpha Centauri diplomacy is that there's practically no way to repair your reputation - even for comparatively minor transgressions.

It could improve your reputation very slowly, and it could be contingent on you not committing more atrocities or breaking any more treaties.

Example:

Suppose your reputation is calculated in the programming as a score between 0 and 1,000, where 0 is pariah and 1,000 is beloved. When you have the wonder, your reputation score increases by one point in every two-turn period in which you do not commit an atrocity or break a treaty.
Crimson Sunrise

This should be automatic, and you shouldn't need a Wonder or anything. With good behavior, over time people should think better of you. If you make deals in the favor of others, it should help to an extent as well.
Drachasor

~Again and again I ask for EU type of diplomacy. It is much clearer; you can understand why somebody does not like you (religion, or you made a war with its friend). EU type of alliances rocks! Negotiations to make peace and decisions who gets what after the war are great! Ability to look at the map how any country treats other countries is very welcome. There are many other aspects that I want to see in CIV game that are in EU diplomacy model.
MxM

~There should be a diplomatic state between two civilizations when they first meet. It would just be Contact. There would be no formal peace treaty of any sort, and because of that no need for formal declarations of war. Units from these civilizations could attack and destroy the other's units at will without suffering a hit to their reputation, to war weariness, or having to deal with many civilizations ganging up on the attacking civilization.

The caveat would be that diplomatic relations between these two civilizations would be severely limited until a peace treaty was formally written. There would definitely be no trading of strategic resources or of technologies, and none of the other nifty things that come with embassies and such. Yah, and a peace treaty would be required before an embassy could be established.

And one thing would still have meaning in this type of relation. Borders would be respected. Trespassing or taking another civilization's cities would still be considered an act of war.

I think this would allow for early expansion with a bit more flavor to it. You could model the almost continual warfare that occurred then without having to switch to a war footing. Minor conflicts would just be a natural part of ancient civilization and you wouldn't have fullblown wars until your states became more cohesive and organized.
Lorizael

I disagree here. If you go around attacking strangers, you should suffer a hit to your reputation from people that know those strangers (or meet those strangers before you). You are acting like a Barbarian and that isn't looked kindly upon. Similarly, you are basically at war (attacking a contact Civ should put you in a state of war, but shouldn't require a declaration), so you should suffer weariness. 

Despite the pros you listed later, it still just sounds like going A-Viking.
Drachasor

~The ability to claim lands as you explore them. Other Civs could then recognize those claims and

a) Let you settle it
b) Take it for themselves (another reason to go to war)
c) Recognize your ownership, and purchase the claim.

This would make exploration slightly more powerful, no?
Mrmitchell

Perhaps the solution to these ideas is to have two ways to claim land.

1: beyond your explicit borders are you "understood" borders, wherein it is allowable for another Civ to settle or build, but it is considered bad form (they take a reputation hit from other Civs). How bad this is depends on how close to you they are...your Cultural influence peters out in the non-explicit area, but is still there in the understood border sense. Also, building next to someone's minimum border area is considered very bad form, and would be very unlikely to be done (so no more dealing with enemy Settlers building a new city nestled just between two of your cities).

2. You can have a military unit "claim and guard territory" which claims a city-sized space around that unit, but doesn't extend LOS. However, I don't think there should be a big reputation hit for violating this. Oh, and the Unit can't move when it does this, it must stay still or lose the claim. All other claims, historically, have been more grandstanding than anything else.
Drachasor

~I thought about an information screen telling everything about another civ. It would be accessed by right clicking the portrait of a foreign leader in the diplo screen. It could look like the attached picture. 
(Here I'm commenting the picture. If my post interest you, you should watch it first). The shown resources are everything the foreign civ has at disposal (local + import), not only what they can trade. This way, you know if they can build knights or not at all. The "may want" resources are what they could buy from you. When your cursor is on a resource, you have a small popup which indicates where it comes from, or where it goes to (like "fine chinese silk" in your trade advisor) 
The map is here so that you know where are the cities, like at the culture advisor. 
The science tab would show all their knowledge, the most recent discoveries they made being at the top (it is useless to know directly they mastered writing when you have to scroll down all the way to know if they have advanced flight). 
The buttons in the bottom would make it more practical to go spying (you are directly spying by the French) or comparing their army (you go directly to the defense advisor screen, the French being in the right column) 
Spiffor

~International Peace Conference 
- Since the world wars are difficult, if not impossible, to end, there should be a possibility to call international congresses (by clicking a button in the diplomacy / shift-D screen). 
( See this site for how it should look: 
The central proposition (such as "peace treaty with any other, right of passage with any other"...) must be accepted by all so that the congress is a success. The proposition would make the leaders react, and you can see with their faces if they agree or not. 
If they don't agree, what to do ? Bribe them ! By double clicking on their face, a specialized diplomacy screen should pop up, where you make propositions only to make them accept the treaty (private diplomacy can be held anywhere else during the game). 
Naturally, you don't want to pay for the whole world peace. In such a situation, there should be a button when you're speaking to "give to..." an other : 
(See this site) 
Once you click it, the concessions you ask from your partner don't go to you, they go to another civ. Here's an example : 
Let's say the Aztecs have won against the Iroquois, capturing Salamanca, but due to intricated MPPs, this war cannot cease. As the neighbours of the peaceful Iroquois, you don't want the balance to be broken by an unfinishable war. Then, you call a congress between Iroquois, Aztecs, all of their allies. The Aztecs will accept the peace treaty for 20 gold per turn, but you feel the Iroquois must pay : On the congress screen you double click on Hiawatha, choose "give to..." -> "the Aztecs". And then, as you would do in a normal diplomacy screen "gold"-> "per turn" -> "20". 
(See this site: ) 
When you return on the congress screen, you see Moctezuma accepting, because he knows he recieves a compensation. 
If you definately cannot have everyone accept, you could kick the "rebels" out the congress. 

Well, I admit managing the other's diplomacy is not easy, so I think such a tool should be completely optional. But useful if you want to influence more directly the others. These multilateral bargainings could be used to make solid alliances too, by asking all those who are MPPed with you to MPP between themselves as well. (or to ask everyone to reduce his nuclear weapons, and so on...) 
International congresses should be available once nationalism is discovered, or once UN is built. I don't think the AI could manage such a thing, so only the player could call for one. If the negociations succeed, due to your great diplomatic skill, the invited civs would be a bit more likely to vote for you. 
Spiffor

~Declare atrocities, sanctions, nuclear arms reductions, pollution reductions 
David Murray 

~Ask another Civ to end a war against a third civ. 
Kyle 

~Ability to pressure allies/others into breaking treaties/stopping war 
Raleigh 

~Players should be able to trade units with other civilizations. 
With the same system as for workers (the unit you want to trade must be in your capital, you must have trade roads with your partner). 
The AI should value this unit about : the unit's modernity, the unit's experience, the civilization's military needs. 
Spiffor 

~Players should be able to bribe other civs to declare war to others, without getting directly involved, like in Civ2. With this tool, you really can play a puppet-master kind of game : weakening your ennemies, and direclty helping your friends, without waging a war. 
Spiffor 

~Your spies should know the vote intentions of infiltrated civs (POSSIBLE SPY OPTION??? INFILTRATE PLANNED COUNCIL VOTE???). 
There should be a way to bribe the other civ to vote for you (HIGLY expensive, and impossible if their spies know you're going to win) 
Spiffor 

~A complete information screen about others civs is needed for the civs with which you have an embassy. 
It would list the: Government, capitol, relations with other civs (not only war/peace..., but also politeness), trade agreements, treasury, vote intentions, and most important : the knowledges they have and are researching. This screen should be accessed by a right click. 
At the beginning of each turn, your foreign advisor "could" pop up (with an option for turning it off), saying in one screen everything which happened (war declarations, discovered technologies, traded technologies, diplomatic incidents...), big deal such as war and peace declarations would be written in bold. 
Spiffor 

~Toned down requests for unit removals; or require the enemy to hurry their unit's movement through your lands 
Examples: Ask them questions: ""Well, what is that unit doing here? Where is it going? How long will be be within our borders?" " 
Kolyana 

~I'd like to be able to co-ordinate actions with the AI from time to time, rather than just have him running around doing his own thing. 
Kolyana 

~There must be some way of demanding that the units NEVER RETURN to your lands 
Kolyana 

~An expirable, non-revocable non-aggression treaty. This would fix trading between agressive and non-aggressive countries. 
Example: 
A Civ is agressive but needs some resources. Right now, the other Civs won't trade with them, likely due to security concerns. Why give oil to the enemy war machine? 
But - a non-aggression treaty involved with a mutual trade that expires after 20 turns would allow the non-aggressive Civ a sense of security and give the aggressive Civ an opportunity to obtain trades and enjoy the diplomatic aspect of the game. 
Allow us to trade security for goods - it makes sense and benefits both parties. 
Venger 

~In the UN: anyone can ask someone to stop fighting another- useful if you have two potential allies but when you side with one it pisses the other off... 
Cian McGuire 

~If the UN is built and other nations have agreed to vote in favour of one of your competitors you have the option to say "F**k the UN!" and go on with your bussiness. 
This decision would result in all other nations being at war with you for a period of 40 years. 
Mannamagnus 

~Amassing troops next to A.I. border should be considered hostile and they should prompt you to demilitarize the area or declare war if they are outnumbered more than 5:1. 
YahMon 

~Is a "Dont watch allies/peace/enemies moves" (except combat) too much to ask for? (wasn't for SMAC) 
Blake 

~We need to have more info on other civilizations in the foreign advisor screen (i.e. are they more or less technologically advanced?, what gov't type?, income per turn?, yada yada yada) 
YahMon

~And a new format for displaying the meeting room.
Only seeing 6 civs is useless when more then 7 civs in game.
Option would be to have a box per civ, on which it shows the status they have with other civs in basic symbol form...
Paddy the Scot

~Well, on the subject of the meeting room- I would like to suggest a non-graphics intensive room that doesn't take the player out of the game... I don't really care about seeing the enemy leaderheads- or if I do, then I would rather seem them in a CTPI-like way... on an info-tab... There is no need for Civ IV to be graphic-intensive... it should be streamlined, smooth and simple
DarkCloud

~- Conquered territories conditions (different states of "conquered")
- Peace conditions with others (expanded version)
- Demands, requests and ultimatums
Trifna

~MPPs are only initiated when your 'allied' Civ is the one being attacked, otherwise, being the aggressor in a war will not initiate your MPP partner into the war.
Fosse*** *** = I changed this around but took the idea from Fosse.

~Land liberated that belongs to your MPP partner will transfer over to your partner.
Fosse*** *** = I changed this around but took the idea from Fosse. (tell me if I'm interpreting what you said incorrectly)

~I do agree with the occupied territory concept also. One reason of course is to improve the bug in MPP. You lose a city to an invader. Then you retake your lost city which activates any MPPs the invader has. This is not how MPPs should work.

But another reason to have this is to prevent the annoying thing where an ALLY conquers a city that you lost to an invader. I've had this happen to me before and it is very annoying. (I've taken advantage of this too but still its stupid). You could of course declare war on your ALLY to recover the city but an occupied status would remedy this situation.

In this case an ALLY could either temporarily occupy the city until peace treaty to determine final recognized status or it could be hard-coded so that any ally that occupies your city that it be turned over to the recognized owner immediately because your ALLY merely liiberated the lands for you.

Another thing is that occupied status allows even fully dead Civs to be sor t still alive underneath the surface. A dead Civ would flee abroad to an ALLY and the territory would be considered occupied despite it being totally taken over. Such occupied territories could be the source of rebellions and even revival.
Polypheus

~11. More editable options for scenarios. Not only war and locked alliances, but also mutual protection pacts, embargos, … trade exchanges too.
12. New diplomatic options like asking a civ to do an action against or in favour another third.
13. The ability to edit the attitude of every civ for a scenario.
14. The ability to trade military units, not only workers.
15. It seems a good option to extend the idea of locked alliances to other treaties, like locked embargoes or locked mutual protection pacts, …

16. More options, bribe cities, bribe units, poison water deposit, introduce nuclear artefact.
17. Use special units for subversive actions.
18. It seems to be good to combine the Civ III diplomatic system with special units to carry out the dirtiest covert operations
Spanish Community List (submitted by Kramsib)

~Admittedly I've only glanced through this thread, but an important feature I don't see mentioned is allowing allies to share tiles - IE let civs help defend the cities of their allies.

I would have loved to see what a Persian+Greek or Iroquois + Zulu alliance could have done if this option had been added to Civ3.
Kloreep

~I just think it should be implemented differently in the future.
With a resource based system, 'modules' could be traded instead of whole units. The reciever would have to use his own manpower though. Look in the resource-prod-thread! There is more about it.
ThePlagueRat

~it would be good to be able to give units to other nations like ships tanks etc as gifts or threats etc. through diplomancy
Creator (submitted by DarkCloud)

~IMHO, one of the few (the only?) thing MOO3 did right was not making diplo communications real-time. You make an offer, send it off, and the AI civ accepts or rejects it within a few turns. Importantly, you can send off only one such offer per civ per turn. Limits diplo haggling. Something similar could probably be implemented in Civ IV, basing the round-trip time for a proposal on distance. How we'd get around the issue of contact time with civs on the other side of the planet, I dunno: either make the round-trip communication time some large amount of turns, or just limit contact to everyone within a certain range (which the MOO games do).
Vlad Antlerkov

~I don't like the idea of limiting the number of people you are talking to at all. Simply making communications last more than one turn (like MP does with another player in Civ III) would solve both issues you brought up, Vlad.

Plus, I think it would be fun. Diplomacy would have some elements of tension added to it, as offending the other leader with a poor offer could cause him to cancel negotiations that have gone on for two or three turns. Peace treaties especially would be harrowing if you are on the defensive!

The downside: "But then diplomacy would take years, even in modern time! Centuries in the ancient times! Egad, the unrealitic timeframe is horrible!"

My Response: A tank traveling on a road between Chicago and New York doesn't take a year.
Fosse

~I think that a declaration of war should only be made as an intentional move in diplomacy. 

Meaning: If the other person does something (tresspasses, uses nukes, violates a treaty, attacks a unit of yours) that could be an act of war you get the message: "The Romans have kidnapped one of our Settlers. Shall we... Declare war; Ignore the transgression; Condem the act and warn against future actions"

What this actually does in terms of game play is give players and AI leeway to break and bend the rules of civility without causing war every time. You can choose to risk war, certainly.

This would let you attack that small military force that has been camping on your palace steps without necessarily starting war. An international incident, to be sure, but not war.

This would allow for skirmishes that don't interupt world trade (or even trade between the nations). 

There would be a diplomatic penalty for engaging in acts of war while diplomatically at peace.

Also, bring back the old cease fire! So you can stop fighting and try to hash out a deal while the spectre of breaking down relations leads directly to war.

This would be great in single player, but would especially beef up multiplayer diplomacy.
Fosse

~One thing that bothers me about Civ 3 that could be done better is the ability (or lack of) to see the TRUE attitude of nations towards each other. You can see if they are at war or not. But I want to know if the Romans are angry with the Koreans or if they are life long allies. 

Which brings up another point:
Diplomatic relations should change over time and sway back and forth or have the occasional flare one direction or another due to some sort of international incident but I tire of having nations pair up declare war fight for a while then literally attack the nation they had allied with just a bit before or pair up with the country they were just fighting with to attack the player. It seems to happen more times than warrants the odd out situation that might happen.

I know this point has been made before but I feel it cant be stessed enough that we should be able to ask nations to cease aggression against OTHER nations. OR ask them to increase aggressions towards other nations. 

I think that if you should be able to form brotherly bonds in the game. Real world example: America and Britain. It would take a heck of a lot for us not to be allies now days. I can't see in the forseeable future us not giving each other 100% if the other was threatened. Relationships like that should be possible in the game. Right now it seems like no matter how much you "give" to another nation thru out the ages it can turn on you in an instant. For example, a game I'm playing right now France was getting stomped by the Romans and asked me to join in a war against them so I did. I went to war with the Romans and captured back all the french cities that france has lost. I GAVE the french cities back to france (ALL OF THEM) (Imagine liberating French cities eh Anyway, a mere 20 turns later and France is just as grumpy with me as anyone else. (What gives ? ?) 

Also when A nation turns grumpy with you, there needs to be better explanation as to WHY the nations attitude towards you has begun to sour. What have I done wrong ? And then give me the opportunity to fix it before the nation "hates" me . .. 

(Honest you can send in your weapons inspectors!) haha
wes77

~Trading Wonder abilities.

ie i let you have the benfit of my Pyramids if you let me have the benefit of The Great Wall (not a good example).

On the principle you should be able to trade anything.

Also allows smaller nations to merge in the late game to remain competitive, in a slightly different manner.

Of course you could bully this out of smaller states, but in that case, you could just take it of them. Maybe a late game only diplomatic option
The pirate

Occupied Territories (thread by skycommando)

~occasionally, i find myself wanting to fight a war for reasons other than territorial gain. perhaps i want trade concessions, or maybe just two or three cities along my border. but in order to do this, i have to destroy as much of a rival civilzation as possible. indeed, until a peace treaty ends a war, all captured territories should be considered 'occupied lands.' while resistance may end there, you have not established full political control over the territory. you may not even WANT full political control over the territory. when you sign the peace treaty, withdrawal from all occupied territories can be one of the negotiating points. in addition, with an improved united nations, the un could issue a resolution insisting that you return occupied lands to their rightful owners. and if you retain it, those captured territories would never fully lose their identity as 'english' or 'german' or whoever they were taken from. neglect them sufficiently and they'll rebel. has the parent civ already been destroyed? doesn't matter: they could actually start up again!
skycommando

~Indeed, the Civ3 war setting of all or nothing is frustrating. We should be able to wage wars for trade (may be on demand of our "private sector", as someone said in the trade thread) or technological cooperation, etc, and not only for land and cities.

That would give you a nuisance power, which is completely neglected in the game as it is. If other Civs want you to remain peaceful, then they'd better spoil you with trade and gifts, etc... or crush you if they can. 

But definitely for this and other features, the AI would need a complete reconception to stop being as dumb as it is.
grap1705

~right. maybe different 'types' of wars? border conflict vs. total war, skirmish vs. engagement. attacking an enemy unit should mean a declaration of war: it should remain up to the nation that was attacked to declare war or, if it so chooses, to fight an 'undeclared' war. this way you could aid your allies militarily in a war without declaring war on their enemy (pershing's rifles in wwi, for example).
skycommando

~Occupied territory should stay occupied until a formal peace treaty is signed. THere should be cease fires and peace treaties, so we can see situations where countries are not at war, but the world community still recognizes land (that may be fully integrated into its new home otherwise) as occupied.

Occupying someone else's "rightful" land would cause tensions with that country, and with any third countries who like them more than they like you. 

If revolt models are implemented (and there are some good ideas out there) then occupied land could be treated as a whole different entity in those, so you might see a swatch of occupied territory rebel against both its oppresors and its former leader!
Fosse

-----END OCCUPIED TERRITORIES THREAD------

Diplomacy (thread by CyberShy)

~- be able to discuss the number of turns an agreement lasts
- better alliance model in which you can free the cities of your allies and give them back to them. (or they automaticly become theirs again)
- good indicator of attitude between civs, this shouldn't change too easily. If 2 civs have long good relations, that should pay off.
- implement long-term diplomacy, in which you discuss several matters over several turns, in which you try to get your oponent slowly on your site
- global-diplomacy with multiple civs at the same time.
CyberShy

~I would also like to add trading of military units.

There should be closer military collaboration among allies, perhaps also the SMAC method of suggesting targets for your allies, and also perhaps being able to walk into your allies' cities for defending or combined stacks...

The use of allied cities would be very usefull also to heal your units.

One more thing: eliminate RoP rapes. This is not too hard to do, the moment you declare war against a civ you have a RoP with, all your units in their territory automatically move out.
Master Zen

~make joint armies (not the cIIIv armies) that can be controlled by one party. ie. my best friend is in war, I don't want to join that war, but I want to give him 50 tanks to use in this war. After the war is over I want them back. He'll be in total control over the tanks.
CyberShy

~Loaning units is a good way of give technologically backward nations a helping hand in a war without giveing them the technology or means of production.
Dauhpin

~However, why not just have it so you can either give someone a unit, or give them the means to build X numbers of a particular unit (or even building). Then they can build a certain number of said unit or building, until they use up the help you gave them. I think that would handle things in a more elegant manner. There are too many potential difficulties with unit loans, I think.
Drachasor

~rhaps you could charge something for each lent unit that was lost - but then you're getting into some really complicated diplomatic situations. And because they're so complicated, I think the liklihood of being in Civ IV is rather low. 

Unit trading should be in.

Having allied units in the same city should be in.

Giving liberated cities back within alliances should definitely be in (adds much more realism, IMO).

Suggesting target nations (and cities) should be in.

Suggesting tech research goals should be in (come on now, you ought to be able to coordinate techs with your AI partners!).
Trip

~An AI that acts more or less rationally, as if it where leading a country rather than playing a game of chess.
General Ludd

~civ4 needs to implement long term, short term, and era term goals for the ai so it acts rationally.
Lawrence of Arabia

~What I want is for the AI to stop accusing me of breaking an alliance when I win the war.

Here's an example: In a WWII scenario, I am America, allied with England, France, and Russia against an alliance of Germany, Rome, and Japan. I completely conquer one of the enemy civilizations. As the CivIII AI is set up, I get accused of breaking my alliance because the civilization that we were allied against has died.

I do not think that it is unreasonable to ask that the game should not penalize you with your allies for winning such a war--isn't winning a war supposed to be the top reason for forming an alliance in the first place?
Ijuin

~I fully agree with unit 'trading' and not lending as lending doesn't really happen in reality. Or at least I dont think it does.

I would also like to see the following changes/additions to diplomacy in civ4:

- Bases/airfields on allied soil

- A way to force another nation to cease its hostilities/war against an ally. Through threats or gifts (like trade etc)

- Proper alliances that states can join (like NATO)

- Trade blocks (like EU and FTA) that basically equate to increased income for the states involved and better/cheaper access to other members resources etc.

- Protection agreements in exchange for resources (or even possibly luxuries) or other. Similar to what has been in place between the US and Saudi Arabia for the last 60 years where the US guarantees Saudi military protection in exchange for access to her oil fields. This could be done by say making the agreement which would automatically include a RoP and one state has to setup a militray base on the others soil before the access to resources can begin. There would need to be some cleverness to ensure that the agreement was being upheld should hostilities begin however. This might be in the form of a one way Mutual Protection Agreement so it automatically draws the protector into war with any advisaries of the protectee but not the other way round.

- This is tied to another idea I have about sea based fishing grounds and oil fields so would involve other game changes too. And agreement that would allow friends access to your waters for fishing or to prospect and build oil platforms. All with limits ofcourse.
builderchad

~That's a very good point I was going to mention. There are many historic examples of military unit transfers.

Regarding reviving a dead civ, France was not really totally conquered -- by a civ definition. Vichy France (about half of the original size) signed a peace treaty with Germany, declared war on England (technically the British navy opened up on the French warships that would not surrender). So the French AI made a crazy about face (in a Civ perspective).

A few years later, US and British invaded French land in North Africa fighting French, then German troops. Clearly France was restored to it's original geography. However, it was done relatively quickly (all within 5 to 6 years) and there were Vichy French cities providing an already existing nation to add cities to - the civ perspective
Shogun Gunner

~The addition of "Occupied" as a new status of land. 

In Civ III, the land is either theirs or yours. A conquered city might have a few resistors for a few turns, but largely you own a city as soon as it's taken.

If we have a system in which conquered land becomes "Occupied," and provides no shields or production for either side, then we have the beginnings of some really neat war-time diplomacy.

You cannot trade occupied territory to third parties (closing the silly exploit of giving conquered cities to third parties), and the cities become very high stakes chips at the eventual peace talks.

Occupied cities become officially part of the conquerer's land when peace is made (unless the city is returned) or when the enemy is destroyed or surrenders. Occupied land returns to the defender when peace is made (if the city is returned in bargaining), when the city is retaken militarily, or when the aggressor is destroyed by the defender or a third party.

This also lets Mutual Protection Pacts keep you out of trouble when your friend gets aggressive. If you sign a pact, and your pactmate goes on a rampage and some poor civ tries to take back its own city, then you don't have to go to war.
If that guy presses into your friend's land though.
Fosse

~I think lending would be handled well enough by being able to give units, or give the ability to build units. If you give the ability to build a unit, you can choose it to last a certain number of turns or for a certain number of units. That way you avoid the muddled issues involving lending units.
Drachasor

~I'd like negotiable deal lenghts. 
20 turns for everything is boring. I want to negotiate less gpt for more turns! Or I won't declare peace for anything less than 30 turns of guaranteeed safety! 

I'd like to see multilateral diplomacy.

I'd like to see one way ROP and MPP. I might come to the rescue of a tiny nation that sells me resources if I'm the world's biggest power. But if Number 2 attacks me then that little place shouldn't necessarily be brought into it.

I want politicaal borders, that can be decided upon by nations with embassies, and are immune to the effects of culture (unless a whole city defects). Cultural borders should only be important in the ancient ages. After a certain level of advancement they should be taken as the default political border, until two nations decide to run a nice straight line down the middle of the mountain range in between them.

Surrender, like SMAC!
Ceasefire, like Civ2 and SMAC!

No "advisor" that simply tells you yes and no! Let diplomacy happen with real bargaining!
Fosse

~In addition to lend-lease, mercenaries have a long history: the Swiss were famous for theirs. US bases in Europe or Korea are essentially lended units as a deterent.

In order to make lending work, the borrower should not be able to disband the units. If he tries, the lend ends. Further, the lender should be able to set a damage limit after which the units will automatically reteat to the nearest allied city. They aren't going to fight as hard for someone else as for their own country. Alternatively, when a lended unit becomes weakened, the owner decides whether the unit continues or retreats. This is representative of the unit commander following the policy of his own country instead of the country he's fighting for.

The biggest thing that needs fixing is that allies should consult before going to war. You don't just go to war and drag all your allies with you. And an ally refusing to join a war you started (especially if you didn't get him to agree to it) is not as bad as an ally that doesn't aid you when you're attacked.

I think it should be possible to restore countries. I'll add to the example of France the example of Poland, which did not exist between WWI and WWII. These kind of things should greatly increase your diplomatic standing. To simplify things, perhaps a single government in exile, like the Free French, should exist: allying to it will mean you don't need garrisons for any cities you retake.

Countries should be able to federate or amalgamate, as the 13 colonies became the US or as the EU is forming now. A weak country threatened with destruction should be looking to become part of a stronger country, even if the only choice is the country presuring it. A modern example is Hawaii, but the examples are countless as nations formed from kingdoms.

It may be too complicated to maintain national identities beyond federation to allow repetition of the fragmentation of Czecheslovakia or the Soviet Union--or the US Civil War. It might also frustrate a player.
Tall_Walt

~Political borders also sound great and I have wished for those ever since playing SMAC. Fosses' ideas on it are great though it could get fiddly when it comes to dividing land. This could be simplified by having subregions based on geography which could be subdivided.

I am also keen on Tall_Walts' ideas on nations forming from smaller states and fragmentation. One way this could be achieved is by having many many cutural/racial groups (like Texicans and Georgians or Czechs and Slavs etc) which would mean that in addition to running all your normal affairs foriegn and domestic you would also have a whole slew of issues to deal with specifically related to cutural divisions within your own country. One idea I was playing with was the notion that despite there being 'unexplored' land at some point peoples become native to it and lay a kind of ancient claim to it. This would mean that regions become more important and part of negotiations, invasions, defense etc.

Negotiable length treaties and agreements is also a must, I have never liked the '20 turn' limit.

Alliances should grow stronger and ties between long standing allies should run deeper and deeper. Take the US and UK for example. There is not much that would undo that relationship and it would take a great deal of time for that to errode. Alliances in CIV always seemed so fragile to me regardless of how long you had a good relationship with another nation.

I would appreciate it if someone could explain the Swiss mercenaries lend-lease thing to me as it would be useful to see how this was actually worked. I can see this working better in older times but today there is such tight integration of units to other parts of the military and intelligence that this would definately be more of a challenge and I would like to hear of any modern day examples of a true lend-lease. The US forces in both Europe and Korea, for example, are still commanded entirely by the pentagon of that there is no doubt. Albeit if those forces were to enter into action it would be under heavy coordination with local forces and other NATO presence
builderchad

~I don't think mercenaries would be such a success. If they are used in a conflict the opposing civ will see it as an act of war (or will at least demand that you retreat those forces or go to war). So a classic alliance would be more suited. If you place your units in a allied city you should have the choice not to go on the offensive but by putting units in the allied city (meaning that the ennemy civ needs to attack you before being able to overtake the city) you still aid your ally and if you choose a more active role you can declare war on the ennemy civ too.

This has the advantage that you don't have to be automatically at war when you do not want to and still honour the alliance.

In diplomacy terms your ally should ask to choose between the following:

1. Declare war to the ennemy (your ally preferred option)
2. Send troops into the border cities for defensive purposes (2nd best because it libertates a lot of your allies units )
3. give a certain ammount of money/turn (so he can buy weapons)
4. give weapon related technology
5. Cancel Allience (not really an option requested by your ally but a choice that you always have during negotiations)

Maybe different types of alliances should exist, like a 'defensive alliance', 'research alliance', 'Full alliance'...but maybe that is a bit over the top
Lambiorix_be

-----END DIPLOMACY THREAD------

[old comments]
Ok, I believe I got most of the ideas listed. I still need to go through and try to summarize and/or make them more clear if at possible. Plus group similar ideas and concepts together. I'm going to credit the idea of allowing unit trading as a general consensus. Sorry for taking so long to even update the list to this point, but I will try in the coming days to make the list more precise. Please feel free to make any comments on ideas you feel should not be in there. 

This is the basic summary for all the ideas:

A streamlined diplomacy room and bargaining table that emphasizes showing information and not based on intense graphics. Allow more indepth deals that hold more meaning between not just two civs but two or more civs at one time. Make it possible to trade units between several different civs. The relationship between two or more civs should play a larger impact and be more broad. Territory and borders need to be negotiable between two or more civs. All of this combined to provide a more distinct, strategic, and exciting diplomatic part of the game. 

It was thrown together without much organization but for now it shall do
[/old comments]

It’s been 7 months since I last updated this thread, however, I don’t think my absence made much of a difference.  Not many more ideas were added to the list since my last update; albeit, I apologize for not taking the time to update the list periodically.  I’m only uploading the list to show that I will make an attempt to finish the Diplomacy portion of the list by sometime in September.  I’ve added all (thought-to-be) ideas from January 14, 2004, my last update, that are in this particular thread, then thrown in the ideas from two separate ideas which can been through hyperlinks towards the bottom of the list.  Since Drachasor made a very well entailed response to the list, I made his comments into subsidiary portions of an idea that it curtails to.  I’m going to try to integrate his comments into the idea itself in due time.  Also, I need to organize the list into well defined ideas, which is going to be the most daunting task of all.  If anyone would be willing to help in any fashion I would greatly appreciate it.  Thank you.