Heh one way 4C was better Than 4D

from GalCiv2 Forums
is that when a race came to you with a peace treaty offer, you could see everything that u had and that they had, effectively, if u were beating the crap out of them, but didn't just want to settle for peace, u could demand some techs, planets, money, etc from them as part of the treaty, can't do that with 4D nor GC1 i think u should bring back that "bug" because it adds some negotiation into play when they are suing for peace.
10,442 views 9 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top
I agree you should be able to demand more stuff.
Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top
hear hear!
Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top
yeah but every tiime this is included in a game i usually just sur for peace get tons of techs then declare war the next turn

there should be something that prevent peopel from doing this like major moral penalties and other civilizations declaring war on you for not honoring a peace treaty. Also for violating a peace treaty the turn after its sighned should make your civilzation very very evil
Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top
Or just copy of civ4 and be unable to attack for 10 turns. When your overwhelmingly powerful aginst a race you've been at war with they should be able to surrender and become your permentant ally ala alpha centauri

Is it me or are all my ideas just ripping off other games. Im gonna put my head in the microwave to spark some imagination
Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top
I think demanding anything from another race should have some cost to your influence pool. Or maybe there should be a special vote in the United Planets on limits of demands etc. Something that would introduce a cost to the demands.
Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top
I think it depends on several factors, some of which I don't think the AI could compute. If someone attacks me, takes a few of my planets, blows up a few of my ships, then I build a military that makes his eyes bug out (happens a lot, I always have a very strong economy and industrial base), then I think war reparations are perfectly reasonable and I shouldn't take a hit for expecting them. However, I do think that there should be a "minimum duration" on peace agreements, from both sides.

What GC has isn't a peace agreement, it's a cease fire. Because there's not a peace agreement, it gets abused. In fact, it gets far worse when you're fighting an alliance, because you can let them buy peace knowing that THEY are going to declare war again soon, so even a penalty for declaring war wouldn't eliminate this. On the other hand, having a penalty for getting something out of a cease fire might make it harder to buy your way out of a war you don't want to be in. So I think that if there is a penalty like this, it should only apply if the player that is receiving goods other than the cease fire if that player is the one that added those items.

I still think the better way is to impose a minimum duration for the peace agreement/cease fire. I'm not sure I want it a negotiable length, as that could lead to a few different types of exploitation.
Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top
i agree as well that their should be minimum time for peace. If any of you played Birth of the Federation, there were actually four treaty durations, 25, 50, 100, and indefinite. although rather than having a set number, y don't we have a slider for the amount of turns it will last?
Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top
Where would the slider fit in the negotion screen?
Reply #9 from Stardock Forums Top
Being able to see what they have is an interesting issue. It is free intel, which I don't like. When trying to trade technology, they should offer a tech they feel is appropriate, not one you choose. So if they just finished super battle tech 5, you won't know. If you want a certain tech, maybe you can ask for it, but they can say "no, we dont have it (could lie of course)", or "no, your deal is not good enough" etc.