15-06-1999 23:07									#61
	Full PM-box? Change here!

A bit late, but what the heck.
ZenOn, i just found your post.
What I said about wars, that they give you a bonus to military production.
However, civilain production does suffer after the war.
America economy slancked down ( in comparision ) after both world wars.
A war is a strain on the economy: by directing it to realms it has no use in peaceful times, you are damaging the growth and direction of the industry.
Not a single country did not suffer reduced effectivness after a war ( the few years after ).

	16-06-1999 14:35									#62
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

-=*MOVING THREAD UP*=-

	16-06-1999 17:14									#63
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

here's something i'd like to see...neutral civilizations

neutrality

When a civilization is neutral then it can't have any combat units outside of it's borders (it can however have non combat units and explorer units outside of its borders), neutral civs receive only half the commerce of having a treaty with someone, however a neutral civilization has commerce with all civs. A neutral civ can't vote for or be elected planetary governor (if that is even in civ3). If they declare war or sign a treaty then they lose their neutral status. If advanced diplomacy options were ever added to the game they wouldn't be able to do the ones that would violate their neutrality. However, it is an atrocity to attack a neutral civ if someone attacks a neutral civ then the neutral can have military units outside of their borders but they can only attack their conquered cities. If they attack a city that wasn't originally their own they lose their neutral status, also if a neutral faction ever commits an atrocity it loses its neutral status. As soon as they either retake the cities they lost or those cities are assimilated into the attacking empire all of the neutral's military units are returned back to inside of their borders. To become neutral you can't have had any other diplomatic state besides truce for 10 years after you have came in contact with another civ

korn469

	17-06-1999 00:43									#64
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

First off, Cartagia the Great said that piracy should become obsolete at some point, but even today cutting off trade lines is a big part of war. I agree thought that there should be some option where instead of destroying the trade line you could just place a unit there and siphon off a percentage of the profits.

Secondly, agree with DarthVada's suggestion to be able to sell units to other civs. Say for instance the Russians are invading Afghanistan, you could sell some SAM's to the Afghans, perhaps at a discount (.5 of production), so that they keep an enemy occupied, or you could sell some bombers to a civ that hasn't discovered flight yet and set the price above its value. It'll be like arms deals, maybe you can negotiate a contract or something. Civs would not be able to get techs from the units though.

------------------
"When Mr. Bigglesworth gets upset, people DIE!"
- Dr. Evil

	17-06-1999 04:36									#65
	Full PM-box? Change here!

The world's largest industry (in terms of dollars) is the arms trade, so it seems reasonable that it be included.

Interestingly enough, #2 is the drug trade...

	17-06-1999 04:47									#66
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

NotLikeTea, I believe I have read that these two have expanded the most during the century. And that sex/pornography was in third...

	17-06-1999 04:50									#67
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I hadn't yet read DarthVeda's idea. That's the problem with having 70+ posts in your thread, I suppose. (Where is this Jeje2, anyway?)

Point is, selling military units is a great idea! The way Darth describes it, it's more like contracting, which is very pertinent to Diplomacy. The way I see it, though, is that at any time you could opt to sell a military unit to any civilization at any time (unless you're at war or cease fire with them). Of course, there would be nothing to stop a nation to go to war with you after they'd bought your stealth bombers, but that's part of the fun. And of course, there would be certain civilizations that would be arms dealers by nature. In ancient times you might run across the Phoenicians, who offer to sell you one of their highly sophisticated caravels for 350 gold. Well, you've only got 600 gold, but there's this spot across the ocean you'd like to settle, and you don't want to risk a trireme, so... you go for it. Meanwhile, you turn down the Germans' offer to sell you catapults for 250 gold each; they're not worth it.

I think this suggestion should be included in the Units thread. Has anybody checked to see if it's there?

	17-06-1999 06:13									#68
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

If a country who you sold weapons to turns against you you should have an advantage fighting against the units you sold them since you designed them and know all of their weaknesses.
Civs to whom you sell units for which they don't yet have the technology to build should gain a bonus to researcht that tech or its prequesits.

	17-06-1999 17:06									#69
	Put an end to popups!

Real world arms selling countries do not sell their latest top hardware, but stripped down or older versions instead. The reason is exactly that they don't want to face their own best weapons. This could be modelled in CIV III by giving a permanent attack/defense penalty to sold equipment. So, when your latest tank model has values 12/6 and you sell them, the client actually gets say 10/5 tanks.

	18-06-1999 01:00									#70
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

This is the second time today I've posted ideas gleaned from another game, but, as the song goes: "Plagerize, but please, call it Research..."
In the game 'Birth of the Federation' (BotF) the attitdue of each major and minor power towards your power is represented on a sliding scale from Worshipful to Hostile.
By using this is CivIII we could implement a lot of the diplomatic 'penalties' that modern and ancient governments were attuned to. For instance, a Democracy that declares war without provocation would get a negative slide on the scale from virtually everyone, inclkuding its own people (negative Happiness), while a Totalitarian government would have less impact because, well, it's sort of expected...
Civs that practice 'benign' diplomacy in the form of trade agreements, peace pacts, respect borders, etc, would get increasingly higher reputations, which make it easier for them to get agreements with other Civs. The gamer who insists on playing like a Warmonger all the time, will find it virtually impossible to get a Diplomatic agreement with the AI, and the AI will be more likely to Sneak Attack, pirate, spy, and otherwise Do Unto Him who has the bad rep.
This is similar to, but more flexible, than the system in CtP where attitudes where discrete ranges from Smiley Face to Snarl: a sliding scale allows more variation of opinion/reputation and more acts or things you can Build, Do, or not do to affect the reputation.
Democracies, by the way, are historically ambivalent towards war: if attacked, they tend to gain huge support from their populations and wage Total War. If they try to initiate the attack without Real Good Reasons, internal support is very weak and neighbors start to eye them suspiciously. The ancient Roman Republic was also very careful about its reputation, but could almost always present an opponent's actions as an Insult to Roman Dignity and an excus eto declare war.
Which means, there's a good precedent for the effects of your diplomatic actions on your own civ and other civ's opinions of you being dependant on your government/social type, the discovery of certain Philosophies (International Law, Pacifism, Absolutism, etc) and your previous reputation: it will be a long, long time before Japanese troops are welcome anywhere in southeast Asia or China, and it has taken 50+ years for German troops to be acceptable outside Germany (in Yugoslavia, just this month).

	18-06-1999 01:11									#71
	Got spare money?

Civs that practice 'benign' diplomacy in the form of trade agreements, peace pacts, respect borders, etc, would get increasingly higher reputations, which make it easier for them to get agreements with other Civs.

-----

This is a bad idea, b/c as it would play out in the game, it would mean that if you're a pretty strong, nice Civ, and you've built Hoover Dam, the game is over. You won't be attacked, and you'll win the space race. Please remember WHY the AIs get increasingly hostile toward you--it's to keep the game from being too easy for you.

-----

The gamer who insists on playing like a Warmonger all the time, will find it virtually impossible to get a Diplomatic agreement with the AI,

------

By warmongering, do you mean fighting all the time, or sneak attacking? If it's the latter, that is ALREADY in the game. If it's the former, WHY??? Being aggressive militarily is just as valid a way to win as building a perfect SimCiv. I don't play that way, much, but I'd hate to have this method penalized. There's no reason in the world to RESTRICT strategic options.

If you are wanting to add realism, then you can just play two turns, and die of old age.

	18-06-1999 06:22									#72
	Get a bigger avatar today!

That joke never gets old, does it? ;-)

Personally, I think diplomacy should not only effect the AI players (which affects single player games and multiplayer games with computer opponents) but also your OWN POPULATION (which affects all games, including pure multiplayer). Build a lot of trade with a civ, going to war is going to be unpopular. Turning on allies will be harder and cause all sorts of happiness penalties. Etc.

Give diplomacy a more tangible feel than the artificial diplomacy of Civ2 which disappears in muliplayer.

	19-06-1999 09:11									#73
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

We're still waiting on a summary! Who's been following this thread closely? Eggman? Flavor Dave? NotLikeTea?

	19-06-1999 09:58									#74
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Eggman--that joke will become old as soon as I stop seeing ideas that make it appropriate.;-)

That's probably a pretty good idea, to have diplomacy affect your own happiness. I would like to see a small, temporary bonus for a democracy that is sneak-attacked. Perhaps 5 turns of a police-station effect (and if you already have Women's Suffrage, that would mean NO unhappiness from units in the field.) Your military advisor would jump in before the last turn of this effect and say, "Sir, I think the men need to be rotated home."

Also, even under communism or fundy, there should be some penalty for you being aggressive. At the least, the aggressor in a war loses the trade income from trade routes. Perhaps, under communism, the effects of martial law are halved for 5 turns.

	18-06-1999 23:18									#75
	Support Apolyton

Here's a diplomatic suggestion in the interest of game balance: Less tribute/gifts from allies. Doing either well is a trick to learn, but once learned it's ludicrously easy to build yourself up at the expense of civs who get nothing in return. Unless a civ is really weak, or really under your guns, or, I don't know, dependent on trade with you and worried about the disruption a war would cause, this gravy train should turn into a gravy little red wagon for Civ III.

	19-06-1999 00:00									#76
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Program the AI to give tribute once, then it doesn't give tribute unless you have a unit within 2 squares of one of its cities.

Also, civs should (possibly) give tribute whenever you give them a gift. This would have the effect of selling gunpowder to the hapless Sioux, and using the money to buy some tanks (heh heh).

	19-06-1999 00:30									#77
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

*sigh*

Fine. Ignore me. But just so you know, you're all making suggestions to a vacuum unless somebody takes over for Jeje2.

	19-06-1999 06:56									#78
	Suffering from ads?

How about if single player civ3 had the same diplomatic system as multiplayer SMAC. Instead of typing a message, both the computer and the human could chose a message to send from a list. Both the human and the computer would have the same list so that both sides get the same option. The list should be as long as possible to cover as many possibilities as possible ( the most important ones since every possibility cannot be covered. The messages would range from demands, declaration of wars, requests in exchange for what you are offering ans simple statements.
This type of diplomacy is excellent because there is the negotiation aspect. offer, counter offer etc...

	19-06-1999 13:03									#79
	Suffering from ads?

EnochF: You are absolutely right. I have been negletting this thread. I'm sorry.

But, now I just updated the list, to thread "ver2.0" I hope you all can read it and comment on flaws. (My email: Jerri@iki.fi) I've spent last night and this morning reading them.

Please move over to: DIPLOMACY ver2.0

------------------
Thread master for DIPLOMACY:
Jeje2

<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by Jeje2 (edited June 19, 1999).]</font>