20-04-2004 13:55									#31
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by J Bytheway 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.

About this I haven't thought at all even worse than what I thought off...........

	20-04-2004 19:07									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Peter's number are very good, but with the source, what prevents us from adding a ProposalDuration flag to the proposal text file, allowing for easy modding, etc. Numbers for durations, benefits and such should be hard-coded as little as possible, IMO.

	21-04-2004 06:56									#33
	Full PM-box? Change here!

okay I have been convinced lol

	21-04-2004 12:54									#34
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Solver Peter's number are very good, but with the source, what prevents us from adding a ProposalDuration flag to the proposal text file, allowing for easy modding, etc. Numbers for durations, benefits and such should be hard-coded as little as possible, IMO.

Solver, we agree again with one little different: I would like to see it dependend on traits(warmonger versus builder) and trust, not just a fixed modable value..........

	21-04-2004 13:05									#35
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Gilgamensch 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.

quote: E 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.

This should be done in the AI's response logic. It works largely like that already but if we allow for, say, a peace treaty to have a long or short term duration we'll have to expand on it.

	21-04-2004 13:10									#36
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Peter Triggs This should be done in the AI's response logic. It works largely like that already but if we allow for, say, a peace treaty to have a long or short term duration we'll have to expand on it.

Not sure about your last part

	21-04-2004 17:31									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Do you mean that say 50 turns would be the base duration for a treaty but depending on personality it could be 5 more or less (as an example)?

	21-04-2004 18:10									#38
	Increase Your PM Length

Yep,

if you are a bloodthirsty untrustfull warmonger, the peacetreaty shall be only like 10 turns. Only if you passed this time without breaking the treaty, the next proposal would be like 12 turns.

But you have been always fullfilling your part of a treaty, the same shall be like 100 turns. (base-value 50)

	23-04-2004 00:54									#39
	Got spare money?

Though I agree about a time limit whith most of the agreements I don't think that a peace treaty should be limited. Once you have signed one, the only way to get out of it should be to break it or to denounce it. I would be more likely to accept time limits though if the AI Civs were really able to make decent proposals.

	23-04-2004 04:14									#40
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Can we have some way to brake down the diplomacy between two civs. Like a way for you to try to get your opponent to brake a treaty by calling him names.

I would also propose we add the next step up from alliance “merger” for historical people this does happen with my main and probably only example being the Germany Austrian thing.

	23-04-2004 04:48									#41
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by The Big Mc Can we have some way to brake down the diplomacy between two civs. Like a way for you to try to get your opponent to brake a treaty by calling him names.

Well currently if you do things to lower your regard (the AI's regard of you) this happens, doesn't it?

quote: I would also propose we add the next step up from alliance “merger” for historical people this does happen with my main and probably only example being the Germany Austrian thing.

A diplomatic version of bloodbath.

	23-04-2004 05:33									#42
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Tamerlin Though I agree about a time limit whith most of the agreements I don't think that a peace treaty should be limited. Once you have signed one, the only way to get out of it should be to break it or to denounce it. I would be more likely to accept time limits though if the AI Civs were really able to make decent proposals.

What does a “peace treaty” mean in the game?

I doubt Canada and Barbados have ever signed a peace treaty but they have very friendly relations.

Canada and the US fought a war in 1812. They signed a peace treaty at the end of it. Let us also assume that Canada legalises marijuana possession and gay marriage this summer, and that George W. invades, and Canadians burn down the White House a second time. Has the US broken the peace treaty of 1812? Is that treaty even still relevant?

	23-04-2004 13:03									#43
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Flinx What does a “peace treaty” mean in the game? I doubt Canada and Barbados have ever signed a peace treaty but they have very friendly relations. Canada and the US fought a war in 1812. They signed a peace treaty at the end of it. Let us also assume that Canada legalises marijuana possession and gay marriage this summer, and that George W. invades, and Canadians burn down the White House a second time. Has the US broken the peace treaty of 1812? Is that treaty even still relevant?

CtP2 being a Grand Strategy Game many things are abstracted in the game. A peace treaty, as far as I am concerned, represents formal and friendly relationships between two countries. IMO, the peace treaty represents the treaties and agreements as a whole that are organizing the peaceful relationships between two nations.

	23-04-2004 14:06									#44
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Flinx Let us also assume that Canada legalises marijuana possession and gay marriage this summer, and that George W. invades, and Canadians burn down the White House a second time.

They won't dare as they are afraid to be burned again



They still can't get over this one..............

	23-04-2004 14:12									#45
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Flinx A diplomatic version of bloodbath.

No you take over the other nations lands army’s and cities this being the next step up from an alliance your people being as one .

The other bloke gets to retire the only problem is that the other civ most really trust you to do this.

of course the is the opposite version of this when the ai can’t win "surrender "

	23-04-2004 14:14									#46
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by The Big Mc No you take over the other nations lands army’s and cities this being the next step up from an alliance your people being as one . The other bloke gets to retire the only problem is that the other civ most really trust you to do this. of course the is the opposite version of this when the ai can’t win "surrender "

Actually would be nice to have this option as a 'hostile' takeover from the AI. If the people would trust the oponent leader more than their own, he'll be kicked out. Doesn't matter if it is AI or human, could be another kind of possible victory

	23-04-2004 19:15									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I guess I meant a diplomatic version of sole-survivor; unite the world through diplomacy versus war/conquest.

	23-04-2004 19:22									#48
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Tamerlin CtP2 being a Grand Strategy Game many things are abstracted in the game. A peace treaty, as far as I am concerned, represents formal and friendly relationships between two countries. IMO, the peace treaty represents the treaties and agreements as a whole that are organizing the peaceful relationships between two nations.

In this sense then yes, peace treaty should have no time limit; but you should be able to cancel the peace treaty (all treaties actually) without declaring war.

How do the trade pact, research pact etc. fit into this interpretation though for these are specific examples of “the treaties and agreements as a whole that are organizing the peaceful relationships between two nations.”

	23-04-2004 19:25									#49
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Flinx I guess I meant a diplomatic version of sole-survivor; unite the world through diplomacy versus war/conquest.

I was thinking of a similar one, but for this we would need the rating of the people (like in SIM City) and that would be to much to ask for (at least for the moment).

So if like only 20% would agree with you, but they vote like 51% for the enemy leader, he could take over

	23-04-2004 21:33									#50
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Flinx In this sense then yes, peace treaty should have no time limit; but you should be able to cancel the peace treaty (all treaties actually) without declaring war.

I agree with you, one should have the possibility to cancel an agreement like you can cancel a trade road (though it should cost you some reputation).

quote: How do the trade pact, research pact etc. fit into this interpretation though for these are specific examples of “the treaties and agreements as a whole that are organizing the peaceful relationships between two nations.”

They are specific treaties organizing a deeper cooperation on specific matters.

	23-04-2004 22:12									#51
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

...and canceling a peace treaty shouldn't hurt reputation. Just because you want to be neutral.

	23-04-2004 22:29									#52
	Got spare money?

Being neutral is a thing, wanting to become neutral when you already have a formal treaty is another matter. Imagine a member of the EU wanting to become neutral again and to get out of the union.

	24-04-2004 00:27									#53
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by E ...and canceling a peace treaty shouldn't hurt reputation. Just because you want to be neutral.

Actively cancelling any agreement should hurt reputation to some degree as it represents a souring of relations.

	24-04-2004 02:38									#54
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Flinx Actively cancelling any agreement should hurt reputation to some degree as it represents a souring of relations.

I think cancelling a treaty should hurt reputation overall but mostly with the country you cancelled the treaty. Also, cancelling a research or trade pact should not have the same effect as cancelling a peace treaty.

Remaining neutral is a step closer to war than having a peace treaty, hence cancelling a peace treaty should have an effect on that nation’s reputation. On the same logic, withdrawing from a military treaty should have an effect, but less so that cancelling a peace treaty. Europe is not a military treaty, it’s an alliance formed from a series of treaties covering the military, economics, research, etc. If you break that, they’ll be hell to pay.

	26-04-2004 15:34									#55
	Suffering from ads?

Cancelling a treaty shall give distrust by the nationed you cancelled with. The amount that is a different question.

You might just want to cancel a treaty as you don't agree with the expansion of this nation anymore or similar, so penulty We might want to have some options when cancelling it. But if you gave a wrong statement (proven with your actions) you will get a reputation hit and maybe AI-nations will ally against you.

For example: You decided to cancel a no-pirate-treaty and 4 rounds later you pirate a trade-route, so the AI will distrust you and might try to ally with somebody to fight you.

Something like this.

	26-04-2004 16:07									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

but Gilgamensch you may wish to pirate trade routes because they are coming throw your territory without paying some kind of tribute.

even after a non piracy agreement the person could send five times the caravans throw.

	26-04-2004 16:50									#57
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

As I said, just an example. Maybe not the best one...........

OK, let's say you had a non-aggression pact, you cancel it and 4 turns later you attack a unit/city of this nation.

	26-04-2004 17:45									#58
	Increase Your PM Length

THE point is we all have a reason for braking treaties so of which don’t need to bigger regard loss.

	26-04-2004 17:48									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

The reason to have a treaty is that you can be sure of something (at least to a certain degree).

If somebody breaks (worse) or just cancels a treaty, the partner shall get at least suspicious. If the person breaking it, afterwards commits exactly what the treaty was about, you shall have even more distrust.

Otherwise: What shall be the reason of a treaty?

	26-04-2004 17:54									#60
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

If I have a peace treaty with civ A then civ A brings an army throw my civ and keeps bring armies throw my territory of one or two tiles so there not in my lands for long. I should be allowed to declare war without too much of a reputation hit.