Negotiation needs a lot of work

[mp1434]

Negotiation with other leaders is SO basic. Every now and then the CPU likes to make demands of me for some turns of peace but i cant make demands of them? The only options i have are peace or war. I know they want to make this version of civ not as complex but cmon. So do you think there is any chance of more complicated negotiation being patched in?

[jkwik35]

i agree and why is it that other leaders demand things from me, which i refuse and they make threats but never actually do anything to me?

[mp1434]

I think in that case you called their bluff as they are just trying to get some free stuff from you.

[icejon]

i agree and why is it that other leaders demand things from me, which i refuse and they make threats but never actually do anything to me?

Are you kidding? always i say no i loose 1 city gain 2 and loose lot of troops (in king)

[Mike Langlois]

If your army is stronger than theres, they will sometimes request stuff, and if you say no they will say "My advisors chose against attacking you", basically saying you would own them in combat.

Although if it was added that we could demand stuff, then once your army is strong enough you could demand anything and they'd have to give it because computer AI cant have courage. It would pretty much just turn into appeasement, and you could demand endless gold/tech making game victories go quicker.

[Amnesia]

The thing I find a little strange is that when you first meet another civ, you can say "let's have peace" and then break it whenever you want.

However, if you agree to, say, 10 turns of peace during a negotiation, you can't break your word...

[Miz isHere]

Yes if they give you something you cant attck for 7 or 10 turns vice versa. But i think there should be a peace treaty for 2 turns if they make peace with you, seems silly within same turn of making peace you can make war atleast 1 turn of peace should be a requirement

[Amnesia]

Also it would interesting if you gain a "reputation" for following or not following your word. So, for example, if you agree to peace with a couple of different civs and then attack them anyway, other civs (maybe just those who have met your targets) won't trust you---either attack you right away or never offer peace or something like that...

[joeymaree]

so if you refuse peace will they attack you?

[Gamer10156]

it basically auto declares war, or so I think, sometimes they wont attack you though.

[Adam And Eve]

We should be able to demand protection money or pick certain knowledge we want from them.

[Gamer10156]

You CAN do that to an extent, get you say "Let's negotiate" and you can demand gold or 1 tech, but not one of choice, also you can buy techs from them for gold, and one more thing, you can make them go into submission and they offer gold for peace.

[Adam And Eve]

You CAN do that to an extent, get you say "Let's negotiate" and you can demand gold or 1 tech, but not one of choice, also you can buy techs from them for gold, and one more thing, you can make them go into submission and they offer gold for peace.

It's very limited, as you've said.

They should make at least negotiations complex. Negotiation is one of the things that sets certain leaders apart, I guess you can say.

[Gamer10156]

Yes I agree, negation should really be one of the main keys to the game, but in the end, they probably won't change a damn thing.

[Mike Langlois]

And why wont they change it? Because the current system works fine, and what your asking for is depth in a game they have designed to be not-so-deep, and more streamlined for the console.

[frank_littleff]

And why wont they change it? Because the current system works fine, and what your asking for is depth in a game they have designed to be not-so-deep, and more streamlined for the console.

I agree. If you want a more complex version, play the PC version. Personally this game works just fine (in fact very well) as it is and is different enough from the PC versions to give a new angle of civ that's much appreciated.