posted 06-15-99 10:59 AM ET        

[b]Neutrality[/b]

When a faction is neutral then it can't have any combat units outside of it's borders (it can however have non combat explorer units and supply crawlers outside of them), neutral factions receive only half the commerce of having a treaty with someone, however neutral factions have commerce with all factions. A neutral faction can't vote for or be elected planetary governor. If they declare war or sign a treaty then they lose their neutral status. If advanced planetary council options were ever added to the game they wouldn't be able to vte on ones that would violate their neutrality. However, it is an atrocity to attack a neutral faction if someone attacks a neutral faction then the neutral can have military units outside of their borders but they can only attack their conquered cities. If they attack a city that wasn't originally their own they lose their neutral status, also if a neutral faction ever commits an atrocity (except for nrve stapling, and this counts too if it's used to much) it loses its neutral status. As soon as they either retake the cities they lost or those cities are assimilated into the attacking empire all of the neutral's military units are returned back to inside of their borders. To become neutral you can't have had any other diplomatic state besides truce for 10 years

it'd be useful for those time when you just want to concentrate on empire building and just be left alone

posted 06-15-99 11:12 AM ET            

Obviously this is going to appeal to us builders.

My only concern with it is that maybe it's too powerful. Often when I play I use a form of "peace with everyone" type neutrality and just go on and build. What happens, sooner or later that bitch Miriam gets fed up and declares war. Presumably, under neutrality everyone declares vendetta so this will discourage her and logically (from a fundamentalist? ) she would decide not to attack.

posted 06-16-99 07:49 AM ET            

Perhaps I should learn to read more closely

posted 06-16-99 08:04 AM ET            

no problem...i'm glad you like the idea, i sent it to tim train as one of the ideas for smacx but i doubt they will put it in but i am hoping

and as a little modifer to: To become neutral you can't have had any other diplomatic state besides truce for 10 years, is you have to actually have came into contact with another faction, you just can't declare neutrality after 10 years if you haven't met anyone

posted 06-16-99 08:25 AM ET            

well if you are determined on becoming neutral then as soon as you come in contact with the first faction just maintain a 10 year truce with that faction and become neutral then

then you'd get your neutrality commerce with that faction and as you came in contact with the other factions you'd get your neutrality commerce from them at that time

see it'd be alot easier to start out as a neutral than to be embroiled in world affairs then just suddenly decide to become a neutral.

also two other thoughts abouts neutrals...even if a faction had sanctions from non neutral factions trade wouldn't stoop with a neutral factions and neutral factions couldn't vote on lifting/reinstating the ban on atrocoties (since that has to deal with war)

korn469

posted 06-16-99 09:31 AM ET            

I was just thinking on similar lines. Obviously neutrality should be avilable to the AI as well but I can't see many of them taking up on it unless their aggressiveness was reduced considerably. i.e., it requires that they break their rules as to when they hate you or not.

posted 06-16-99 10:02 AM ET            

I live in a country that happens to be an example for my point... Switzerland, although not part of the UN or NATO or even the EC, stills bans the use of chemical weapons and other war atrocities (ever heard of the Geneva Convention ?)

I think SMAC neutral countries should not be allowed to vote *for* the ban, but definitely must be able to reinstate it if it has been lifted.

Being neutral does not prevent a country from dealing with international affairs (and vice-versa). Economic sanctions also works against Neutral Countries. Remember earlier this year the US lawyers of the Jewish lobby trying to push a boycott of the Swiss banks because of these "fonds en d�sh�rence" (don't know how you called them in English - the money owned by the people who died in the KLs and that the banks kept)

About the no-war state, I guess I misunderstood you. I thought you had to be at Truce with *ALL* factions before being able to become Neutral. But I still disagree. Truce in game terms is really a kind of cease fire (at least that's the way I see it). I think a status of Treaty (but not Pact) is acceptable. I would definitely impose a 10 years delay after the end of a war, but why after a period of peace ?

posted 06-16-99 11:04 AM ET            

out of the current factions the ones i would see most likely of using it would be the gaians or morgan, but it really doesn't fit them like a glove as it is, a few tweaks or a new faction and presto! you'd have a neutral faction

Aredhan

the Geneva Convention duh on my part!
i conceed your point that a neutral nation could vote against repealing the ban on atrocities and could vote for the UN charter to be reinstated, but couldn't vote for the ban being lifted. here's the way i see neutrality in the context of SMAC. a neutral country would be non biased and not concerned with the affairs of the world. a neutral faction would be more of something of an isolationist trying not to do anything other than improve the quality of life for it's citizens. the eason i said truce is because in game terms treaty means colaboration. if you are colaborating with one side this means you are upsetting the other side. a neutral faction isn't completely representative of today's switzerland it would be something of an isolationist trying to keep from getting embroiled in the conflicts of other factions. the reason that it would take 10 years of having no other diplomatic state than truce/none would be this is the period that your faction is withdrawing from the interfactional politics and conflicts that exist on Alpha Centauri. after that the other sides would see you as non-biased and as long as they think you are staying non-biased they would be more civil in their dealing with you. however if you were weak they would have no remorse about threatning you. and if they saw you as a large and particulary valuable prize they'd be quick to try and carve out a sphere of influence with you (like what britan/japan/russia did to china in the early 1900's)

i hope that makes things a little more understandable and i appreciate your comments they have been thought provoking

posted 06-17-99 03:55 AM ET            

any more comments? i really enjoyed hearing your perspectives

posted 06-17-99 05:23 AM ET            

you are absolutely right about having to add an isolationist chracteristic before a faction would become a neutral faction maybe it could work something like this

isolationist
1 0 -1

1: wants to be a world leader cares more likely to try and build Sps that would increase it's vote for govenor, would try to become govenor would use all military/diplomatic means avaliable to try to dominate other factions. would take greatest offense of you in a treaty/pact with one of it's eniemies. would want you to betray thema and join its side have would send military units anywhere on the map virtually no chance of becoming neutral

0: wouldbe average in trying to influence other factions take normal offense of you being in a treay/pact ith other factions would have a normal desire to become govenor would send military units across the map but try to keep them sort of close to it's territory have little chance of becoming neutral

-1: would have little desire in trying to influence other factions, would practice a live and let live philosophy military units for the most part would stay inside of it's borders have a good chance of becoming neutral

this isolationist personality trait taken along with the warlike personality trait could even more determine how a faction acts

a pacifist world leader would use lots of probes and diplomacy

a military isolationist would defend it's territory to the last man and might even strike at close threats but would be unlikely to declare war on far away empires

kinda sketchy but i think you get the idea