Embassy exchange in alliances
I have some suggestions regarding diplomacy in the game. These changes enhance the cooperation among allies and require allies to trust each other more.
Right now, when you meet with another nation for the first time, the default status is war. This causes problems (undesired war declarations and unit teleports) while forming alliances. So, I propose the default status to be neutral.
Besides, right now the contact time is 0 turns so we can't create alliances without many diplomats. Both can be also solved with one solution: when your ally allies with someone, you should also automatically be allied with that person, which will for example also reduce the # of required diplomats/embassies to form a complete 6 player alliance from 15 to just 5.
Also, when your ally establishes embassy with someone else (friendly or enemy), you should also automatically establish embassy with that person. Right now you have to keep asking your ally to provide information to you.
Finally, you cannot build cities or use tiles that are inside your ally's borders and units inside allied borders cause unhappiness under republic and democracy. I think it'd be nice to have these changed also.
These changes will require the code to change so if majority votes yes, we'll ask book if he can do it.
Edit: This vote covers all changes below. 1 and 2 are only for FFA-diplomacy games and 3, 4, and 5 are for both FFA-diplomacy and team games.
1. Initial contacts starts with neutral not war.
2. If your ally allies with someone you are automatically allied with that person.
3. If your ally/teammate establishes embassy with another player (friendly or enemy), you also establish embassy with that player.
4. Units inside your ally's or teammate's borders do not cause unhappiness under democracy and republic.
5. Using tiles or building cities inside an ally's or teammates borders are allowed.
Comments
Is there really a neutral setting?
I don't think there is a neutral setting.
According to the game manual there are 5 states.
War, Cease-fire, Armistice, Peace, Alliance
Perhaps we could add a new state?
Yes to #1 only. Make sure
Yes to #1 only.
Make sure you drink enough.
I seek you 5556O269O
I have voted no - although,
I have voted no - although, you have 5 options, I agree with some and not others...
neutral
I didn't know there was a "neutral" option. I am changing "peace" to "neutral".
I think war will always come
I think war will always come to you no matter what, and I believe that democratic government is an utopia and a contradiction in terms. If you have any form of government you have something that is not 'the people' in power. I still think neutral would be a good default.
--
Hatred is gained as much by good works as by evil. -- Niccolo Machiavelli
It worked today, thank you
It worked today, thank you Maho!
--
Hatred is gained as much by good works as by evil. -- Niccolo Machiavelli
If you meet an [enemy]
I think this is the whole point of a deomcratic govt. You are not supposed to be waging war on people (unless they tried to kill your daddy, or crashed some planes into your building, in which case they supposedly declared war first).
you can't vote again?
you can't vote again?
Oops, I can't vote on this
Oops, I can't vote on this one either but since it is only for comments, here it goes. I agree with point # 1 (or at least state should be neutral). All other points would be great in a perfect world but since I am a proponent of having Freeciv approaching reality, I have to say those points would not reflect reality close enough. For example, in real life when you negotiate an alliance with somebody, he does not have to tell you about his alliance with other. He may choose to do so, but he might also choose not. The same goes for embassies and bases (units). As per #5, there should really be an option for the 'owner' to give permission, but that is a long shot to implement.
--
A military operation involves deception. -- Sun Tzu - The Art of War, Chap 1.
--
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you. -- Leon Trotsky, (uncertain)
So please reconsider it, if
So please reconsider it, if you find initial war with someone as a problem, or initial peace as a problem :)
Reason for not changing the default status
There is a big problem with changing the default status. If you meet an enemy player for the first time later on in the game the democratic senate will not let you attack. You cannot change status to war. You are forced to change government first.
so just default status
so just default status should be changed from war to neutral, maybe peace?
Or cease fire?
It would solve your problem with units scattered across :)
Good points
OK good points. When the default status is war, the problem is this: A is allied with B and C. B and C have not met yet. When B and C's units meet, then the stacked tiles or cities that consist of the units of (A and B) or (A and C) are scattered across.
Kryon
it's only gathering opinion.
it's only gathering opinion. It's binding power is like poll "do you like a)low taxes, b)apples c)wife". If apples win, then it doesn't mean that you should pay more taxes. It also doesn't mean that you should divorce :)
And you can always put "write in"
Require allies to trust each other more !
I do not think trust and cooperation are built by tinkering with the code, but by players working well together. Kryon this should be obvious to you from LTXV.
The most important of the changes announced here is the second one, "If your ally allies with someone you are automatically allied with that person." I disagree with this. People can and do make stupid alliance decisions. LT12 is the best example. Book allied himself to both me and to the person I was fighting KDE. It is wrong to set up a situation where I must automatically trust an enemy just because someone else accepted an alliance with them.
Embassies are powerful tools in this game. We just voted to make the Marco Polo wonder harder to get because of that. A diplomat costs 30 shields and is lost when making an embassy. For 6 players to make 15 diplomats between them is not such a big deal.
Currently there is no way to remove an embassy. By automatically giving free embassies to all the players in your alliance they get to keep all of them if they decide to leave the alliance. This seems distorted.
Teleporting was removed from longturn a few games ago. AFAIK it only happens in a few rare cases now. I do not understand your problem with the default status as war.
I will be happy to vote on a patch that implements points 4 and 5.
OK I edited the poll.
OK I edited the poll and added 2 more suggestions about borders. This vote covers all 5 changes but Kevin, if you want, you can separate these into different polls. I was just lazy to do it. Also, please state why you are against them so that we can make a better judgment. Thanks,
Kryon
Note: #3 applies one-way only. If your ally spies on someone, you see that information but if an enemy spies on your ally he doesn't see your information because he is not allied with your ally so there is no risk of enemy stealing your info from your ally.
And state that this is really only for FFA-diplomacy games
Most of these changes would not make sense in games without diplomacy. So Team games and Lone Wolf games should really be excluded.
Split this up into separate votes.
Am surprised Maho allowed this vote to go through. It is not at all clear what we are voting for. This should be split up into at least 3 separate votes.
1. Initial contacts starts with peace not war.
2. Automatic alliances with all 'string' allies.
3. Shared embassies with all allies.
I am strongly against all 3 of these but would possibly accept automatic shared embassies in a team game.
note, that it's not possible
note, that it's not possible to do it without code change (as stated in poll body), so I will treat it as gathering opinions rather than something binding.