19-04-2004 05:06									#1
	[DESIGN] Duration of Diplomatic Agreements Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

In Civ3 diplomatic agreements last for 20 turns. In CTP1 (or, going by the source, at least in some pre-CTP2 version of the diplomatic system) they also had fixed terms.

We need to re-implement this because, as it stands, once the AI makes an agreement with you that's it forever and the game can stagnate.

I propose 30 turns. Does this seem reasonable?

	19-04-2004 05:19									#2
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I agree that most agreements should not last forever, but I think some agreements should last longer than others. Ceasefires/leave terrotory agreements should be short term, but I would think peace treaties would last longer. trade/military/research agreements should last even longer (50 turns?) and alliances should be longer or permanent.

	19-04-2004 12:58									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I think I'd prefer variable durations too, in particular Cease fire < Peace treaty < Alliance, but if a uniform dration were used then 30 turns sounds reasonable.

	19-04-2004 13:03									#4
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I agree with EPW, duration of agreements should vary, depending on the type of the agreement.

In CtP1, alliances between human parties never expire. We could adopt this model in CtP2, possibly expanded in other types of agreements, with the option to securely end it after a number of turns if desired. If end it before that number of turns expires and consequences could apply.

	19-04-2004 13:10									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Another idea would be the possibility of defining the number of turns that an agreement would last for, while doing the negotiations, at list at some types of agreements and possibly with an upper limit. That could be difficult to implement for the AI though.

	19-04-2004 14:37									#6
	Tired of ads?

Would be good if these numbers (counting down) were displayed in the diplo manager for each agreement too. Are these values going to be exposed in some text file?

	19-04-2004 14:41									#7
	Remove this text

set a duration would be good

	19-04-2004 15:58									#8
	Increase Your PM Length

duration

I would only like to see it changed depending on government type(s).

Like Demo. to Demo. with the longest duration and the rest, shorter. And if somebody changes to a non-trustfull government, then treaties shall expire. But otherwise ?????????

Just my first thoughts..........

	19-04-2004 16:05									#9
	Support Apolyton

What would you class as an untrustworthy government.

	19-04-2004 16:26									#10
	Increase Your PM Length

Democracy no, seriously all of them are untrustworthy. The most untrustworthy would be the type of leader may be, since its not always the choice of the people, even in a democracy.

	19-04-2004 17:28									#11
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Maquiladora Democracy no, seriously all of them are untrustworthy. The most untrustworthy would be the type of leader may be, since its not always the choice of the people, even in a democracy.

Actually you made a good point there Maq.

Best example for me in the moment: There is a democracy out there, where nobody trusts the leader at the top (even not his only people anymore).

So OK, I revert my opinion to make it more dependend on the leader attributes. Those attributes shall be actually flexible, especially for the human. If he breaks often treaties he shall become a untrusty person.

Does anyone have a complete list of personalities?

	19-04-2004 17:37									#12
	Suffering from ads?

this is really going to be hard a communist and a fascist government according to any model would not trust each other but it will never cover real life as Russia and Germany had peace at the beginning of ww2.

	19-04-2004 17:37									#13
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Gilgamensch Best example for me in the moment: There is a democracy out there, where nobody trusts the leader at the top (even not his only people anymore).

Hey gig, no Chiraq and Schroeder bashing here

I agree that there should be limits for diplomacy and it should be based on personality. Or maybe reputation. If you reputation suffers, the more likely nations will only sign short agreements.

I'll also make the point that the big benefit in Civ3 about limited treaties is that they expire so you can declare war without a rep hit or you can renegotiate a trade deal.

I'm for the renegotiating the trade deal, but in the effort to stem war-like expansion and declaration of war should have a reputation hit and increases with the era (but I do wish we can adjust it for the reason for war, i.e. AI not leaving territory should not have rep hits)

	19-04-2004 17:46									#14
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by E Hey gig, no Chiraq and Schroeder bashing here

I didn't mentioned any names, did I? Just a remark from my side

quote: I agree that there should be limits for diplomacy and it should be based on personality. Or maybe reputation. If you reputation suffers, the more likely nations will only sign short agreements. I'll also make the point that the big benefit in Civ3 about limited treaties is that they expire so you can declare war without a rep hit or you can renegotiate a trade deal. I'm for the renegotiating the trade deal, but in the effort to stem war-like expansion and declaration of war should have a reputation hit and increases with the era (but I do wish we can adjust it for the reason for war, i.e. AI not leaving territory should not have rep hits)

Actually with the fixes we are trying to do, we shall not have the problem anymore of an AI stumbling all over the place. But that is (for the moment) still future........

And I agree, if you declare war you shall get a reputation hit, unless you had a valid reason (like discovered covert operation by this enemy). But if you just declare war for nothing you shall have a hit, and even worse sneak attacks: If you sneak attack you shall hit the bottom of the floor (again unless there was a good reason....)

	19-04-2004 18:17									#15
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

what about border disputes the ai always goes in to my territory and settles.

	19-04-2004 18:23									#16
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by The Big Mc what about border disputes the ai always goes in to my territory and settles.

Border disputes: If he really settles in your territory, yes a valid reason. Attack and case dismissed.

	19-04-2004 18:29									#17
	Increase the size of your Attachments

yes you build a small fort close to his territory (like in a bottle neck). then cheeky thing builds on or too near to the fort and eventually it steels me fort too.

	19-04-2004 18:32									#18
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by The Big Mc yes you build a small fort close to his territory (like in a bottle neck). then cheeky thing builds on or too near to the fort and eventually it steels me fort too.

Not sure what you mean. If you had the fort before him, the territory shall stay yours. Can you explain a bit more in details?

	19-04-2004 18:47									#19
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

i make my fort then the ai walks onto my territory i tell him to get out then the settler steels all my territory disappears as his city takes over my fort because he settled within a tile of my fort

happened in the venial game a few times.

	19-04-2004 19:13									#20
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

that sounds normal, you were too late As the city is being produced quicker than the fort is finished, you shall have build 3 turns earlier or tried to kick him off anyway..........

	19-04-2004 20:06									#21
	Get a bigger avatar today!

If the city radius of a 'Civ A' city expands to encompass a fort built by 'Civ B' then 'Civ B' looses control of the fort. I think this is what Big Mc is talking about.

	19-04-2004 20:19									#22
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

yes Flinx

	19-04-2004 20:30									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I think Big mc is talking about how borders shift when a city is placed or grows. In Civ3 I kind of understand because its more like cultural influence determines how "strong" your borders are (and enemy will grow into your territory is they have a higher culture value). I think Big MC is bringing up that problem.

A city being settled in tiles you own should cause a war and a rep hit to the settling civ (I lean towards prompting Should we declare war as opposed to automatic war)

I think border expansion, if no culture is used, should be that borders dont move with city placement. first come first serve.


Related to that, I think it links to my unit ability suggestion of CAPTURE TILE. Where a unit moves to a blank territory and captures it creating a civ-colored border around it. It would serve as claiming territory. Capturing another players territory would NOT be automatic war but prompt a question, should we declare war, the AI would declare WAR based on proximity to tile and aggressiveness.

	20-04-2004 00:33									#24
	Put an end to popups!

How's this look?

These have a duration of 20 turns:

case PROPOSAL_OFFER_WITHDRAW_TROOPS:
case PROPOSAL_REQUEST_WITHDRAW_TROOPS:
case PROPOSAL_OFFER_STOP_PIRACY:
case PROPOSAL_REQUEST_STOP_PIRACY:

case PROPOSAL_TREATY_CEASEFIRE:



These last 30 turns:

case PROPOSAL_OFFER_STOP_RESEARCH:
case PROPOSAL_REQUEST_STOP_RESEARCH:
case PROPOSAL_OFFER_REDUCE_NUCLEAR_WEAPONS:
case PROPOSAL_REQUEST_REDUCE_NUCLEAR_WEAPONS:
case PROPOSAL_OFFER_REDUCE_BIO_WEAPONS:
case PROPOSAL_REQUEST_REDUCE_BIO_WEAPONS:
case PROPOSAL_OFFER_REDUCE_NANO_WEAPONS:
case PROPOSAL_REQUEST_REDUCE_NANO_WEAPONS:



These last 40 turns:

case PROPOSAL_TREATY_PEACE:
case PROPOSAL_TREATY_TRADE_PACT:
case PROPOSAL_TREATY_RESEARCH_PACT:
case PROPOSAL_TREATY_MILITARY_PACT:
case PROPOSAL_TREATY_POLLUTION_PACT:


And Alliances are forever.

quote: Maq Would be good if these numbers (counting down) were displayed in the diplo manager for each agreement too.

That's a good idea but I can't make any promises. You will, though, get a message 3 turns before an
agreement expires.

quote: Maq Are these values going to be exposed in some text file?

There are some old fields in Const.txt that were used for just this. I haven't tied them up with what I
just wrote, but it wouldn't be difficult. OTOH, this is just the beginning. We might want to change
things much more significantly.

quote: Keygen Another idea would be the possibility of defining the number of turns that an agreement would last for, while doing the negotiations, at list at some types of agreements and possibly with an upper limit. That could be difficult to implement for the AI though.

At some point we're going to have to get into the AI's response logic. When we do I'd like to see that
implemented (if possible).

	20-04-2004 03:24									#25
	Support Apolyton

Peter those numbers seem like a good place to start, and maybe even finish.

	20-04-2004 05:42									#26
	Got spare money?

If a civ changes governments, perhaps all agreements with other civs should just be canceled. Or if they are changing into a similir government such as republic to democracy the agreements will remain.

	20-04-2004 09:47									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I disagree.

A nation may express disappointment at a regime change in another nation but they do not automatically cancel all agreements

	20-04-2004 10:34									#28
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

well they defanitly reasses the situation, and they would have to discuss the agreements with the new government. Since civilizations in ctp2 go into anarchy during a government change it is probably represents some sort of hostile take over and its unlikely the previous leaders would be in charge. Therefore other nations would have to renew the agreements with the new government if at all. This is looking at it abstractly but I would think cancelling the agreements would simulate this somewhat.

	20-04-2004 13:00									#29
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I must admit, I don't like the idea of cancelling all treaties when changing government. Yes you go through a period of anarchy, but why shall an allience or whatever being cancelled.

If it would be an enforced government from outside (which we haven't got a stealth-unit for or a command for an existing one), yes I would agree, but if the nation decides to change the government through proper elections , why shall this have negative effects?

And Peter:

Having it just like this, I don't really like. If you are a peaceful nation you shall be more trustworthy than a bloody warmonger

	20-04-2004 13:25									#30
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by EPW ...its unlikely the previous leaders would be in charge.

Except that we know the same leader is always in charge of the human players government... The beautiful absurdity of civ games .

With regard to cancelling agreements, I think it's a bad idea - it would be too easy for a Human to exploit to avoid obligations.