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

["Per I. Mathisen" <per@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10 Nov 2002, Davide Pagnin wrote:
> 1) A simple 'contact' should be sufficient to ask for a meeting with
> other nation

I agree. Let's schedule this as a poll on the web page to see what players
think.

> 4) A permanent status is alliance or peace or one side having an
> embassy.
> (Cease-fire will expires at it's real end or at 'contact' expiration)
> (neutral is not permanent)
> (war isn't permanent but is remembered!)

Actually, I think we should make this simpler. Let's separate out
"contact" from treaties, and count it as true 20 turns since last time you
met one of that player's units OR either of those players have an embassy
with the other (OR trade route?). This way you can lose contact and
"remember" your treaties.

> 5) During a meeting, if you haven't an embassy you should have limited
> diplomatic options (or better, you should have a limited knowledge of
> other nation status, so there are less reason not to agree to a
> meeting).
> Example:
> * you shouldn't see how much gold has other nation
> * you shouldn't see how many techs you don't know and that they have
> * you shouldn't see any cities of the other nation that you don't know
> etc.

So how would you design the diplomacy dialog then? This is a big GUI
change. If this makes the GUI more difficult, then I'm against it.

> 6) Embassy report should be more insightful (it should resemble the spy
> report of your entire spy network) somepossible report we can add:

No problem with that.

> 7) we can give some of the above information only if you reach a certain
> discover (say espionage for the most powerful ones)
>
> More words which I like to say but that are somewhat confused:
>
> I feel that for being able to make and embassy (thus collect information
> from the other player by your diplomats and spies) you need to have
> already discovered 'writing'.
> Thus, I think that we can add a 'trade embassies' clause, but this
> should be possible only if both side knows 'writing', otherwise writing
> tech should be part of the clause agreement.
> I think that 'trade embassies' should have a cost.
> (a diplomat or gold equivalent is required, unless you have espionage)
>
> Moreover, I think that 'alliance' shouldn't be linked of having an
> embassy, either side.
>
> Instead I think that 'shared vision' should be linked to having an
> embassy, thus you need make or trade 'embassy' before or together with
> 'shared vision'.
>
> Eventually 'shared vision' should let you see also 'diplomatic reports'
> of the other player. (They share with you they spy network reports)

No. These ideas are bad since you introduce complex interdependencies (ie
new complex rules) which are not clear for players. It makes the game more
frustrating to play. The rules should above all be simple.

  - Per