 |
|
David Murray
|
|
I noticed that it is not possible to sign ceasefires (going on what has been revealed about the diplomacy system); the nearest alternative is a peace treaty. Why? There is a difference between signing a treaty committing to a peaceful relationship and signing a treaty saying that you won't blow someone's head off for a few turns.
Also, no option to negotiate the decommissioning of arms or pollution reduction? Sounds like this game has a Republican's idea of diplomacy--all about trade and money, baby, to hell with anything of social or humanitarian value.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Pembleton
|
|
Cyberspace
Apr 1999 time: 23:15
|
|
quote: Originally posted by David Murray
Sounds like this game has a Republican's idea of diplomacy--all about trade and money, baby, to hell with anything of social or humanitarian value. |
Do I sense a flame war? And I will stay out of it, seeing as I consider myself neither Republican or Democrat but an independent.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Murray
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Pembleton
Do I sense a flame war? And I will stay out of it, seeing as I consider myself neither Republican or Democrat but an independent. |
The point still stands--too much eyecandy and too little substance in Firaxis' new diplomacy model. Very superficial, just like all the other so-called "improvements" are looking so far.
I mean--no option to ask someone to reduce their nuclear arms capacity? No antiballistic treaties? No option to ask someone to stop destroying tiles because they have so many polluting factories?
Why has there never been one Civ game that ever got it just right with the range of diplomacy options?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Murray
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ralf
Treaties are only meaningful...
A: if the AI can exploit/ make use of them correctly. Personally, Im prioritize a "qualitative few" over "quantitative many".
B: if they cannot easily be ignored/ backstabbed, without severe (Europa Universalis-style) consequences. |
If they can program an AI to participate in the exchange of luxuries and complex military alliances, I'm sure they can program it to do other things too, like um...getting rid of some (or all) of their nuclear weapons. non?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Pembleton
|
|
Cyberspace
Apr 1999 time: 23:15
|
|
The arguments about pollution make sense.
But what about cease-fire? Is it known for *certain* this option won't be in the game?
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Madine
|
|
Nukes are kind of tough, but I think the AI can be made to understand the harmful consequences of pollution.
In CTP2 when another Civ agreed to a anti-polution treaty they adhered to the guildlines.
There was a time when my pollution levels doubled and I was polluting about double of all the other civs combined. I was approached with anti-pollution treaties from all the other civs.
Actually I would say that because of the very direct numerical representation of pollution and to an extent even nukes that the AI would be better able to grasp the issues of pollution and nukes than to decide whether to sign a cease fire or peace treaty for example.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001 time: 23:15
|
|
I don't think there are such cease-fires anyways, the opposite of war is peace, if you aren't at war, you are at peace. The Treaty of Versailles was basically just a cease-fire from WWI to WWII. It's not like the Germans became peaceful towards the French between the wars.
In future Civ games, I would like to see scalable units. Not just a non-specific battleship, but different sizes and types. The Yamato class battleships were humongous compared to the rest of the world's fleets' ships. Had it not been for carriers, the Yamato class ships would have been tough ships to sink. For example, putting a limit on the size of battleships (Treaty of Versailles), specifying the ban on certain units (Germany wasn't supposed to build an air force after WWI), and specifying a cap on the size of armed forces (Japan wasn't supposed to have any troops other than a domestic force after WWII).
I think that these things probably won't make it into a Civ game because too many Civers are the kind of people that don't want to think, they just want to play. I call them Cavemen Gamers.
"OOH OOH build tank... move left... declare war... attack *yourcivhere*"
I'd much rather see a game that requires thinking and real strategy.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Phutnote
|
|
I think I read a waaaaaaay back that you can ask another civ to lower it's pollution. think that was in an early game preview. Maybe it's not in anymore, but I'm pretty sure I saw that mentioned at one point.
Don't know about the ABM treaty or arms reduction, but that sounds like a nifty idea.
Who knows? they may have implemented it already.
There seems to be lots of new stuff in the game, and Firaxis is being pretty cagey about releasing it. Only recently did anyone find out that fighters/bombers no longer work like ground units, and still no details exist about how that works (attacks/turn, etc).
I think we'll be pleasantly surprised by all the new features they've stuffed into Civ III.
Phutnote
|
|
|  |
 |
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001 time: 05:15
|
|
In Civ2, you could lower pollution in a city just by building "Clean Improvements", like Solar Power and Mass Transit, without any loss of production. So if you had an anti-pollution treaty, the AI would simply have to prioritise the construction of these improvements in Cities with the highest pollution!!
As for anti-nuclear treaties. This is just a question of the AI disbanding a certain number of its strategic and/or tactical missile units!!
Research treaties would simply involve each side getting a set percentage of the others TOTAL research "points" added to their own (or simply adding your totals together!!)
I do hope that cease-fires exist, because a peace-treaty usually involves the movement of hostile units from "enemy" cities, wheras cease fires are, as has been mentioned, merely a cessation of hostilities which can be reneged on at any time (with little or no loss of reputation). Breaking a PEACE treaty, on the other hand should come at a very high cost.
Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Madine
|
|
I agree that there is an important distinction between cease fires and peace treaties.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Dida
|
|
quote: [SIZE=1] . For example, putting a limit on the size of battleships (Treaty of Versailles), . |
That's Washington Conference, not Treaty of Versailles.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15. Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|