posted 03-15-99 02:11 PM ET        

I'm referring to features which should be added to make "war" more interesting.
For example , the nations which "lost" World War II (Italy , Germany , Japan) suffered certain sanctions from the UN.
They could not build more than xxx tanks/ships/aircrafts for xxx years , they could not build atomic bombs and so on.
It shouldn't be so much difficult to add because I noticed that the Computer keeps track of the faction which provoked the war , so the first one to pray for peace should be "marked" as the losing faction (and so it should suffer these "sanctions" as they lost the war).

In fact the AI has yet to "understand" when
it has "lost" a war.
It is unacceptable that (when I'm the most
powerful (pacifist) faction on AC , and so everyone hates me) something like this happens :

(Leader of XXX faction) : "Hey you give me that tech!"
(Me) : "What the hell do you want?"
(Leader) : AARGH! You Bastard! Vendetta!
---Turns Later---
(Leader) : Ok Ok I've had enough..
---Turns Later---
(Same Leader as Before) : "Hey you! Give me that tech"
(Me) : AGAIN?
---Turns Later---
(Leader) : Ok I had enough..
---Turns Later---
(Same leader as before) : Hey you! Give me that tech!

... and so on :-)
If "war" had these "sanctions" it would certainly become more interesting , and it would maybe help the PC understand that HE has lost the war and for a certain number of turns he will be obliged to self-defense only.

posted 03-15-99 02:43 PM ET            

1). Impose penalty on military unit production for a number of turns, this may be either a UN proposition or as a condition of truce. It automatically ends if the faction in question is attacked.

2). Modify the program teach the AI some self restraint: After you beg somebody for peace, try to rebuild, both in infrastructure and armament, to a certain level before you act up again.

3). Impose war penalty on trade. If you are at war with any faction, all your trade with all other factions will be reduced. That's putting commerce raiding into account. I am sure the Morgans and the UoP still want to do business with each other, but the Spartan cruiser parked just offshore will see it differently.

4). Impose war penalty on research. All research are halved. I am sure many bright collage students are somewhere being connon folders. However, research on conquest are just the opposite, it should get a bonus for every battle won, lessons learnt on the battlefield are far more useful then those in the lab.

5) Impose prolong war (more then 15 turns maybe?) penalty. A prolong war will increase drones, reduce morale, (Sun Zhi: "A prolong war cause the ardor of the soldiers to wane."), reduce mineral output (loss of skilled workers to war).

That should bring the duration of wars down to more realistic range (5 to 20 years).

posted 03-16-99 03:49 AM ET            

Soldiers are recruited from the population. The base population icons apparently represent working adults, so when they're recruited to the military and sent far afield, the city not only has to maintain them (mineral cost) which SMAC does implement, it also loses some of its population.

The ratio of military units built in a base to population unit recruited from a base should be an adjustable parameter, perhaps even separately adjustable for each faction. On reflection, it should depend on the Support rating. But it should not be 1 to 0 as it is now.

Also armies should consume food in proportion to their population equivalent, but also taking into account that soldiers have hearty appetites.

By this accounting measure, war will hurt the economy and growth of any base that supports a distant military unit.

A possible modification is to let army units live off the land: if they're on a square that has food, then that food can be subtracted from what their home base has to supply. We could also send supply crawlers to feed the troops.

Avenger Dragon, sanctions are good, but they must be enforceable. As you know, trade sanctions are laughed off by most factions most of the time. To enforce terms of surrender, you need troops on the ground.

So a nation that sues for peace should face the following demands during negotiations with each opponent. It may demur, but if it's losing badly, it needs to weigh up the pros and cons carefully.

(1) That the terms of surrender last X years. During this interval they cannot be renegotiated.

(2) That the victor be allowed free entry of their troops into the loser's (defeated nation's) territory, including the bases.

(3) That the loser hold to a peace treaty with the victor, in which none of the loser's units may enter the victor's territory. If a unit transgresses, then the victor may destroy it without diplomatic penalty of any kind (even with the loser).

Note that conditions 2 and 3 constitute a one-sided alliance.

(4) That the loser is strictly forbidden to build any offensive units (any units with weapons, including probe teams and psi).

(5) That the loser pay an annual war indemnity of Y minerals and Z energy, or up to (say) 25% of their mineral and energy production, whichever is less.

(6) That the loser is forbidden to make any treaty with nominated factions without express permission by the victor.

Those conditions are in addition to the current negotiable terms of surrender (donation of bases, lump sums, etc).

Such a subservient nation may even be worth defending. Defence of the loser's territory should increase the victor's reputation, especially with the loser, strengthening the dependence.

(7) When the surrender terms formally expire, they _continue_ until one or other side initiate renegotiation.

For example, the victor may make further demands, or the loser may either repudiate the surrender. Either side may seek an Alliance or Peace treaty with the other.

After the terms expire, neither side suffers any reputation loss for demands or repudiation.

Before expiry, demands and repudiation are not possible.

After Repudiation by the loser, the Surrender is replaced by a Vendetta. (Almost certainly a bad move for the loser, as unless the victor has suffered severe losses in other wars, they probably have lots of offensive troops in the loser's territory, while the loser has none.)

The thorny question is what happens to the victor's troops stationed in the loser's bases, when the surrender becomes a vendetta?

Currently, so I've heard, SMAC allows some enemy troops (even mindworms) to exist inside a faction's bases, where I suspect they can do some damage. This would make Repudiation very bad indeed.

Depending on the mechanics of the game, Firaxis might choose to implement variations on these ideas, but I think they contain the germ of a sound and effective system of Sanctions against nations that sue for peace.

One problem remains, what to do about poweful aggressors? In the real world, the only sanction on them is the fear of utter destruction by weapons such as Planet Busters.

posted 03-16-99 05:02 AM ET            

also make them pay war repreations(sp?) say for every city they have when they surrender they pay you one energy a year for a hundred years just like a loan

i know that it would be relatively easily to program in those two paramaters

also for like every four military units a city creates that creates a soldier icon in the city which would be like all the other specalists (docter engineer ect.) he can't work the land and basically does nothing and depending on your support rating he can subtract from your economy and labs rating

so instead of giving a bonus this soldier specialist would take away you have four support it doesn't do anything you have negative four support the soldier specialist cost you -2 economy and -2 labs

that sounds a little harsh but their is a way to get around this attach a mercenary special ability to one of the military doctrines which you could add to soldiers which would mean that it either wouldn't creat the soldier specalist in your city or the soldier specialist wouldn't hurt your labs and economy here's the scale

the second military unit creates a soldier specalist in most cases so if you only have one unit there isn't a penalty the second unit creates the soldier specailist and the the 6 unit makes the next soldier in your town and for every four more units you would get another soldier however in the case you have four support the third unit would create a soldier in your town and the next soldier would come when you had eight units and then every five more units creates a new soldier and if you negative four support the first unit you made would create a soldier with another soldier specailist created with every three more units you make

four: 5 units to a soldier specailist no penalties first solider at three units

3: 4 to a soldier no penalties soldier 1st at 2 units

2: 4 to a soldier first two soldiers no penalty -1 econ after that soldier 1st at 2 units

1: 4 to a soldier first soldier free -1 econ after that 1st at 2 units

0: 4 to a soldier -1 econ 1st at 2 units

-1: 4 to a solider -1 econ -1 labs 1st at two units

-2: 4 to a soldier -2 econ -1 labs 1st at two units

-3: 4 to a soldier -2 econ -2 labs 1st at 2 units