 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Trifna
|
 |
of anchovies
Jul 2001
time: 13:32
|
|
This includes many interwined aspects of Civ, all about exterior policy. It's about diplomacy in war, imposing your conditions to conquered territories (and risking revolts), forcing others to do what you want (economically, politically, perhaps even socially (militarization, constructions...) but I doubt it would get in Civ4).
Three things could change everything if they were included in Civ4:
- Conquered territories conditions (different states of "conquered")
- Peace conditions with others (expanded version)
- Demands, requests and ultimatums
All this isn't in Civ4 or is pretty shallow: in Civ4, exterior policy is limited. These elements can truly bring the "exterior policy" factor, like it is for any country/nation/civilization. It would permit any civilization to bring a different relationship with everyone, sometimes with little difference between "conquered under few conditions" and "in peace, but with many conditions".
All these ideas come from another recent game (give a look, it seems worth it):
http://www.paxromanagame.com/DiplomacyUk.htm
EDIT: Basically, it's all about the different forms of occupation and influence. If a system such as Galactic Civilization's influence would be instaured, it would even have an impact on influence and by this on civs' official international stance. GREAT! 
Last edited by Trifna on 10-01-2004 at 01:43
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:32
|
|
I would like to create a new state of land owndership, occupation.
If France and England go to war, and England captures Leeds, then Leeds and all territory that the capture turns over to France, is considered English territory, occupied by France. France exploits all resources, but it is still recognized by the world as English.
If France has an MPP with the Celts, and England takes back Leeds, then the MPP isn't activated because the French are the clear aggresors. If England pushes on and attaks the English on some land that was French at the war's opening, the MPP is activated.
At the end of the war occupied territory can be put on the bargaining table. Whoever keeps it at the peace treaty official gains control. So if England is willing to give up Leeds to sign peace, it becomes a real French city.
This will make MPPs stronger and less unpredictable... so you can sign one and not worry about your pact mate waging a purely aggresive war that activates thier "protection." Perhaps England would be able to offer the occupied land to another country, on the condition that the other country can take it from France. So at the end of the war, the Romans might get Leeds if they enter an alliance with England.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:32
|
|
I don't know why that would be easier. Certainly less intuitive, as checking for number of citizens for each city seems a bit silly.
But also... imagine I fight one war against Rome and take Pompeii. Now, Pompeii is surrendered to me at the end of the war, and is by all rights mine.
All of the citizens are Roman, when a few turns later Cesar violates the treaty and out of the blue comes in and takes Pompeii.
Well, since the majority (all) of the citizens in Pompeii are not mine, I guess my MPPs don't activate. If 100 years go by and 51% of the citizens are Roman the situation is even more absurd. Or if the city is traded...
Creating "occupied" territory as a new type also has other advantages besides the MPP thing. Police units could do double duty in such cities (which would be prone to higher unrest anyhow), production could be greatly reduced, or restricted from military units (Step one: Conquer city. Step two: buy guard unit. Step three: Move entire original army on to next city. Step four: Rinse).
Occupied territory is a sensible distinction, has several potential game heightening consequences, and I think would be an overall improvement. The MPP enhancement is not my main goal, just a very nice side effect.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Odin
|
 |
Biology Nerd at Minnesota State University Moorhead
Sep 2000
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fosse
I would like to create a new state of land owndership, occupation.
If France and England go to war, and England captures Leeds, then Leeds and all territory that the capture turns over to France, is considered English territory, occupied by France. France exploits all resources, but it is still recognized by the world as English.
If France has an MPP with the Celts, and England takes back Leeds, then the MPP isn't activated because the French are the clear aggresors. If England pushes on and attaks the English on some land that was French at the war's opening, the MPP is activated.
At the end of the war occupied territory can be put on the bargaining table. Whoever keeps it at the peace treaty official gains control. So if England is willing to give up Leeds to sign peace, it becomes a real French city.
This will make MPPs stronger and less unpredictable... so you can sign one and not worry about your pact mate waging a purely aggresive war that activates thier "protection." Perhaps England would be able to offer the occupied land to another country, on the condition that the other country can take it from France. So at the end of the war, the Romans might get Leeds if they enter an alliance with England. |
I like this idea,  that crap in Civ3 is annoying. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Trifna
|
|
of anchovies
Jul 2001
time: 13:32
|
|
A relation between two countries can be colder or warmer. This brings a few consequences:
- Better/worst Casus Belli
- Stronger alliances are permitted (or not)
- Customs may be more/less important (so more/less trading, and/or +/- money)
I think that all this could be represented into Civ 4. This would mean that relationships and diplomacy would FINALLY have a serious importance. It would bring Casus Belli (which impacts on your population's moral when you attack or not), different degrees of alliances (like MOO3, but perhaps better...) and the true existence of inter-national commerce.
Also, it would mean that you can make different things having an impact on this relationship such as:
- gift/ask tribute
- send embassy with money
- express public support or opposite
- lower custom/custom exemption
- expel/accept political refugees
- recognize ruler
- etc.
Of course, these exemples do not all suit Civ perfectly, but you get the point (these examples come from a game named Pax Romana: has to do with EU I think).
Last edited by Trifna on 12-01-2004 at 12:50
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Plotinus
|
|
Why are people so keen on unit trading? Would it really make much difference? Why not just give the other civ a pile of cash to build the unit?
I would like it if the adviser on the negotiation screen warned you of an extremely unwise offer ("They'd be insulted by that" or "You're giving away an enormous amound!") - but he wasn't sure in the middling range ("They might go for that. Why not give it a try?"). Then you might have a conversation with the foreign leader rather than with your own adviser.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Trifna
Why create all a bunch of types of occupation/colonization/half-occupation/etc when we can simply have ONE scale with a few subdivisions representing "part of your territory", "almost under your orders", "protectorate", "strongly knit to you", etc like the Roman (and many before them) were doing? |
I'm not really sure what you're saying here. I think the only difference between my suggestion and what you're saying here is the way we are phrasing things.
I am saying I want a new diplomatic designation for territory, and that it should be Occupied. Occupied territory means that it has been taken in a war that is not yet over.
You are saying that rather than having different types of ownership, we should have different degrees, correct? How is that functionally different than what I've suggested?
What I'm hoping here is that we're actually in a good deal of agreement, and that we can flesh out what the impacts of our ideas might be able to have.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Trifna
|
|
of anchovies
Jul 2001
time: 13:32
|
|
Does your idea look like http://www.paxromanagame.com/DiplomacyUk.htm with different degree of relationships (peace, friendship, alliance, subject nation, annexed nation, romanised nation...)?
For me, it's about deciding to which extent you wish your conquest to submit to you. Making it a part of your territory is not like a protectorate. There are different levels, from "part of your territory" to "completely free from you".
Of course, if some city is more under your control this means:
- Its citizen will like your control less if they are form another civ (happiness, revolts...)
- You get more control on the city
- You get more production/money on the city
- It gets assimilated faster (or slower if you can't make yourself loved: the conflicts gets worst)
- Others.
Look at Canada under Great Britain, Algeria under France, Philippines under USA, France under nazi Germany, Vietnam under USA, Iraq under USA, some countries under "protectorate", and so on. You'll see that there are strenghts of links between conquerer and conquest. It's simply a matter of being more or less attached to the civ/nation.
Last edited by Trifna on 13-01-2004 at 01:19
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Plotinus
|
|
A small matter. I've noticed that the foreign adviser often says something like "Remember that the X have attacked us before. Don't trust them!" He says this even if the reason that X attacked us was that *I* attacked *them* first, despite a long history of peaceful co-existence and helpfulness on their part. It would be a lot more helpful if the foreign adviser slagged off only those nations that actually deserve it...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:32
|
|
Trifna, I'm not super familiar with Pax Romana, but I'm certain that you and I are thinking along the same terms here.
Even if we'd implement the idea differently, and possibly to different degrees, it's clear that we both want it.
How do the rest of you weigh in on more and varied degrees of territory control?
Would you like to see a scale with more gradations, like Trifna has proposed, or simply an additional land ownership type, "occupatied," as I have?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fosse
Would you like to see a scale with more gradations, like Trifna has proposed, or simply an additional land ownership type, "occupatied," as I have? |
I would rather not have a slider as such. Instead I would like a limited number of specific states that are each differentiable in terms of game play. Such as:
Occupied
Vassal State
Puppet State
Protectorate
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-12-2003 00:59
must go down the pub and think further on this over some brews... 
|