[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#2274)

["Davide Pagnin via RT" <rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2002-11-07 at 17:45, Per I. Mathisen via RT wrote:
> 
> (Repost and summary to RT.)
> 
> This patch allows us to clean up the special case of diplomats and
> allied cities, which makes for a lot of mess for such a stupid special case.
> 
> For instance: If this is applied then diplomats don't need a dialog
> before entering allied cities (they can behave like normal units), and
> all code related to DIPLOMAT_MOVE can go away.

Sorry, but I'm against this logic that we can call:

"simplify a rule because this make programmer's life easier"

Similar reasons have been proposed for path-finding and, in a different
way for incite cost, but to different extent.
It simply seems to me that we are talking of 'preferences' not else...

> 
> It also makes sense (at least to me) for in-game reasons. You can't
> maintain diplomatic relations with someone that you cannot contact.

Point taken.

But we need to define how 'contact' is defined.

Perhaps a 'border' for the nation should be in effect and can you have
'contacts' with a nation that share a border with you.

> 
> The solution is:
>  - When you make a Peace or Alliance treaty with someone, you gain a
> permanent embassy with that player.

This is non-sense. (At least for me, and to this extent...)

When I first meet another player in his island, I'll make an enbassy, so
that I can see which sciences he have.

If I want, I can also meet him and make a peace treaty (at this point he
knows my sciences as well).
After the meeting, I will continue to be informed of new science
discovered by him, he will not ...

Moreover, I have lost my diplomat to make the embassy.

Per, Do you want to talk about 'real world' ?

Well, AFAIK no embassies are opened without the agreement of both sides.

In war time, embassies are closed and diplomats expelled.

(And I'm talking of modern embassies, perhaps egyptians, romans, greek,
and other old nations, have a concept of embassy different from actual
one... not *VERY* different, but 'foreign' in war time were killed quite
easy... not expelled)

>  - If you lose your embassy, you also lose your Ceasefire agreements.

At the moment, you will lose an embassy in 2 different ways.

1) Civil war due to capital captured
2) Marco Polo's Embassy expires

Per, you've said to me that you want 'civil war' also changed,
and afterwords Gregory asked that Marco Polo's embassy are permanent.

With both of your proposal we have no more occasion when embassy are
lost...

> 
> I think this is the most obvious solution.
> 
>   - Per

On Thu, 2002-11-07 at 20:08, Gregory Berkolaiko via RT wrote:
> 
> I still think Marco should be simplified by establishing embassies
> once and for all (and then ceasing to exist).
> 

Gregory was sure of this, and yes, I'm against this change.

At least, I'm against this change without possibility to retain the
'expire' part for civ2.ruleset.

If you want to make Marco Polo permanent in default ruleset, I have no
problem, but I'm quite sure that this is not the point...


Anyway, we can start to talk about the whole diplomacy thing.

We have to define how many diplomatic status there can be.

In civ2 there were: No contact, Ceasefire, Neutral, Peace, War, Alliance
What every status means in civ2:

No contact <--> Neither of the two sides can ask for a diplomatic
meeting.

Ceasefire <--> The two nations have agreed to not attack each other for
at least 20 turns. Ceasefire will expire after 20 turns.
Sneak attack possible with a little reputation penalty.

Neutral <--> No diplomatic clause has been agreed between the two
nations or they have expired.

Peace <--> Nations have agreed to a peace treaty, with no time
constraint. 
Sneak attack possible with a big reputation penalty.
Declaring war fullfilling the request of a third nation is possible and
the reputation penalty is less.

Alliance <--> Nations have agreed to an alliance treaty, troops can
enter both city nations and are treated as non-foreign one.
No Sneak attack possible.
Breaking alliance result in a big reputation penalty, unless request by
a third nation, in this second case the reputation penalty is less.
If the alliance is broken, foreign troops are expelled from nations
borders.

War <--> A conflict is undergoing between the two nations.
It can end in only 2 way, the 2 nations agree on a cease-fire or peacy
treaty, or the 2 nations lost contacts each others.

In civ 2, Marco Polo's can expire, and I have to check what happens to
eventual real embassies founded before Marco Polo's has been built.
If you lost Marco Polo's, you lose embassies.
If Marco Polo's expires, you lose embassies.
If you conquer Marco Polo's you gain embassies.

The concept of 'Marco Polo's' is that, when you have it, you have a
group of skillful merchant that are willing to trade with other nations
in the world, and that let you contact the other leaders.

I have to check, but if I remember well, in civII you can ask to meet
every other leader to whom you are in contact with, even without having
an embassy. (This is different from Freeciv...)
In civ I, this wasn't possible.
In civnet, you can use one diplomat to spy foreign nation's chat.
Having an embassy, is instead a way to make espionage.
You know number and names of enemy cities (and which one is the capital)
You know number and names of science known by that nation.
You know the amount of gold in the nation treasure.

If I get this right, I think that it is your 'diplomat' that
accomplishes all this work and give you such informations.
So, if you have a peace treaty or an alliance, but no diplomat in the
foreign capital, you don't have the right to know foreign nation plans
and resources.

At the end of this, I think that we should consider that changing
diplomacy will change a lot of the game...

What other people, mostly players, of this?

        Davide