30-04-2002 22:22									#1
	Suggestion for Peace Negotiation Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I'm playing as the Germans, and due to a few strategical errors early in the game (stayed in despotism way too long, and I wasn't getting enough money to buy techs off the other civs), I'm way behind in techs. So, I go for techs the old-fashioned way: beat the crap out of the English to the north.

So, I reduce them to one city and I ask for all of their techs. The problem is, they have a raft full of techs that come after those, and the problem is, I can't ask for those in a peace negotiation. I can only get the techs immediately after mine. As a result, I only caught up halfway to the AI in terms of techs.

I think that, if possible for a patch, Firaxis could change things a bit so you could get ALL of their techs, not just the ones you could research next (i.e., for the Industrial age, if you don't have Steel and Refining, and the AI also has Combustion, you should be able to get combustion as well if you got Steel and Refining.)

	30-04-2002 22:27									#2
	Suffering from ads?

You can also start another war with another civ.

	30-04-2002 23:50									#3
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I think it's better the way it is. It would be WAY too easy to beat up on someone to get techs your suggested way. I like that you can't get techs that are unresearchable to you. It's like having tanks fighting alongside phalanxes like in Civ II.

	30-04-2002 23:56									#4
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I agree that this is annoying, but it would just be too easy to take out one weaker civ and then automatically catching up with everyone else. What I usually do is take them down to a couple of cities, to the point where he will give everything, then a few turns later, I attack again hoping that he will give everything again. And if not, he's dead and no problems from flipping.Then I move to the next target to do the same thing.

	01-05-2002 00:25									#5
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by asleepathewheel What I usually do is take them down to a couple of cities, to the point where he will give everything, then a few turns later, I attack again hoping that he will give everything again. And if not, he's dead and no problems from flipping.Then I move to the next target to do the same thing.

Yup, that's exactly what I normally do. Since most of the time, I'm running a democratic nation; if I stay at war for so long, I will be in trouble. Didn't you know that the AIs are sticking together against you (well, maybe at the Deity level)? Therefore, I have many civs to beat up for teach (assuming that I survived their main assaults)

	01-05-2002 01:40									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Right, either oscillate early in the game, or go to war on muliple fronts when in Republic or Democracy, and make peace with the weakest first.

	01-05-2002 09:15									#7
	Tired of ads?

Peace? Why?

Of course, peace is useful upon occasion. The easiest way is to trade a load of junk with them for it.

	01-05-2002 09:39									#8
	Inflate your Upload Space

The Peace negotiation is weak, though, in general.

Examples:

I'm Germany. I go to war with Greece. I go to Persia and sign an alliance with them against Greece. We kick Greek butt. Greece comes begging for peace. Now, under the current system, if I accept peace with Greece, Persia considers this a break of alliance and my reputation gets stained. That's a crock. Stained reputation for making peace?! I think that once the person who initiated the alliance makes peace, the alliance should be peacefully cancelled, regardless of the turns. The arbitrary 20 turn number is stupid. Just make it for until I decide to make peace!

And, say I have a MPP with Persia. If I make peace with Greece, the next turn Greece attacks Persia, so then I automatically go back to war with Greece. I can't even be evil and renege on the pact. Again, that's BS. When negotiating peace, you should be able to make the opponent make peace with your allies at the same time. They did this in SMAC, so why not in CIV3?

The current peacemaking rules ensures a lot of cyclical warfare that really messes up the civ balance.

	01-05-2002 09:52									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

And Another thing!

Like in EU, there should be a certain mandatory window of time after a peace treaty is signed wherein you simply can't go to war with that party again. I think 10 turns would be sufficient. I just had a case where I beat the Indians in a war, signed a treaty. In the next turn they still had troops in my borders. When I asked them to leave--you guessed it--they declared war. Now this was after I'd captured their capital and other cities and decimated their army. Who'd be that dumb?

	01-05-2002 15:39									#10
	Got spare money?

I also think it's better the way it is - otherwise if I completely sucked at science but had an overwhelmingly huge military, I'd be able to get all the tech... nah, not the good way, IMO.

	01-05-2002 18:30									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov if I accept peace with Greece, Persia considers this a break of alliance and my reputation gets stained. That's a crock. Stained reputation for making peace?! I think that once the person who initiated the alliance makes peace, the alliance should be peacefully cancelled, regardless of the turns. The arbitrary 20 turn number is stupid. Just make it for until I decide to make peace!

I agree. A very good idea. BUT. You could draw the AI into a war as your ally, and have them pull out one turn later, ala Civ II. I really hated that. I agree that the big negative you incur for making peace before 20 turns is pretty silly.

A thought... why isn't there collective peace bargaining? Why can't the Persians and Germans sign a peace treaty with Greece together and split the spoils in some way? That would be interesting and make the human player actually participate in their little Macheiavellian MPP wars they create. Otherwise, they wouldn't get any benefit.

And another thing... Why is it that EVERYONE gets mad at you when you do something dirty? Example... Zululand and Babylon are on poor terms. Why should Babylon get mad if I break a treaty with Zululand? They should probably encourage me and be nicer.

	01-05-2002 18:35									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by dunk999 I agree. A very good idea. BUT. You could draw the AI into a war as your ally, and have them pull out one turn later, ala Civ II. I really hated that. I agree that the big negative you incur for making peace before 20 turns is pretty silly.

That wouldn't be an option...if you get an AI player to join your war, they can't pull out. But you can negotiate peace earlier. And the peace would apply for all allies against that enemy.

quote: A thought... why isn't there collective peace bargaining? Why can't the Persians and Germans sign a peace treaty with Greece together and split the spoils in some way?

Yeah, you should be able to force a defeated enemy to give stuff to allies, too. And you should get a big rep boost with that ally if you do.

quote: And another thing... Why is it that EVERYONE gets mad at you when you do something dirty? Example... Zululand and Babylon are on poor terms. Why should Babylon get mad if I break a treaty with Zululand? They should probably encourage me and be nicer.

Excellent point. However, I think it goes down on your record as you being generally untrustworthy. But an enemy of the enemy you screw over shouldn't be quite as mad as they get, you're right.

	01-05-2002 19:17									#13
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Yeah, you should be able to force a defeated enemy to give stuff to allies, too. And you should get a big rep boost with that ally if you do.

Or if you are in a Military Alliance against a nation and you enter peace negotiations your allies are automatically present and you must do three way bargaining.

	01-05-2002 19:41									#14
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by wrylachlan Or if you are in a Military Alliance against a nation and you enter peace negotiations your allies are automatically present and you must do three way bargaining.

Seems fair, but could make it impossible to make peace. I kinda like the EU model that he who starts the war is the "leader" of the alliance and therefore is in charge of making peace.

	01-05-2002 19:47									#15
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Seems fair, but could make it impossible to make peace. I kinda like the EU model that he who starts the war is the "leader" of the alliance and therefore is in charge of making peace.

But having three-way (or more) bargaining would allow you to bargain towards contiguous cities. If you and your allies have just defeated germany and the cities you have captured are scattered in-between the ones britain captured, it would be nice to be able to easily trade so that you now control a group of cities that is all together.

	01-05-2002 19:59									#16
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by wrylachlan But having three-way (or more) bargaining would allow you to bargain towards contiguous cities. If you and your allies have just defeated germany and the cities you have captured are scattered in-between the ones britain captured, it would be nice to be able to easily trade so that you now control a group of cities that is all together.

Yeah, but you can do city-swapping later, can't you?

	01-05-2002 19:59									#17
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I like the splitting up of captured territory... good idea wrylachan.

	01-05-2002 20:13									#18
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Yeah, but you can do city-swapping later, can't you?

Yes you can do city swapping later, but the AI is notoriously unwilling to swap cities.

Also if you've just taken down a civ of say 45 cities between you and your allies, thats a lot of city swapping. Doing it in the trade screen would involve writing down the names of the cities on a piece of paper, or maybe printing out screen shots, then doing some trades, then based on what they were willing to trade going back to the map to see where you are. It would be a seriously tedious process if the allie actually traded cities which is not at all guaranteed.

I think it would be much more elegant (though probably more difficult to code) to have a screen with a mini-map of the territory in question and the ability to see what's on the table and what that does to the borders. Also you would need to program into the AI some preference for contiguous cities. The AI would also need to understand that if a resource is outside a cities border, that that city will have the resource in a very few turns and value that city higher even though the resource isn't inside the borders now.

	01-05-2002 20:35									#19
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by wrylachlan Yes you can do city swapping later, but the AI is notoriously unwilling to swap cities. Also if you've just taken down a civ of say 45 cities between you and your allies, thats a lot of city swapping. Doing it in the trade screen would involve writing down the names of the cities on a piece of paper, or maybe printing out screen shots, then doing some trades, then based on what they were willing to trade going back to the map to see where you are. It would be a seriously tedious process if the allie actually traded cities which is not at all guaranteed. I think it would be much more elegant (though probably more difficult to code) to have a screen with a mini-map of the territory in question and the ability to see what's on the table and what that does to the borders. Also you would need to program into the AI some preference for contiguous cities. The AI would also need to understand that if a resource is outside a cities border, that that city will have the resource in a very few turns and value that city higher even though the resource isn't inside the borders now.

Some very good ideas. The problem I see is what about dealing with an ineffective ally? Say I got Civ X to join me in a war against evil Civ Y. However, I do the lion's share of the war and capture the cities by myself, with little help from X. Then, going into that 3-way peace deal, unless I give X stuff (and they'd probably want a lot) then they'd refuse to make peace with Y, hence effectively vetoing my peace. Then I'm forced to do the same thing that happens now, which is p*ss off X to make peace with Y!

	01-05-2002 20:55									#20
	Remove this text

EU has an excellent model for alliances. One nation is considered the leader of the alliance and has the power to make peace settlements for all members of the alliance. (I have been often screwed out of hard won territory by this factor.) There should be some way of implementing this in Civ3

	01-05-2002 21:04									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Some very good ideas. The problem I see is what about dealing with an ineffective ally? Say I got Civ X to join me in a war against evil Civ Y. However, I do the lion's share of the war and capture the cities by myself, with little help from X. Then, going into that 3-way peace deal, unless I give X stuff (and they'd probably want a lot) then they'd refuse to make peace with Y, hence effectively vetoing my peace. Then I'm forced to do the same thing that happens now, which is p*ss off X to make peace with Y!

I see this as two stages:

1. Make Peace
You make peace individually, but it works like this -
- You do your peace negotiations.
- Tour ally is immediately informed that you have made peace.
- Your ally can decide if he wants to make peace or not.
- If an ally decides to continue a war after his ally makes peace he takes an attitude hit with the other civs.
- If your ally decides to make peace he finishes his own negotiations and together you proceed to stage 2

2. Divide the spoils
This is only available to Military Allies who declare peace on the same turn. This is the screen with the mini-map that allows you to trade around captured cities and adjust your borders correctly. Essentially this would work exactly the same as trading currently works, except that you could see what you are doing in terms of the map, and it would allow three and four-way trading. Also during this screen, and this screen only, the AI would heavily favor trading cities to achieve contiguous borders.

I think the defeated civ should also be in this screen with the option of giving up some of its random outlying cities stranded by the war in exchange for cities close to its capital.