Allied liberations and one last chance

Your.Master · June 10, 2001, 20:02

Two things in this post, really.

First: have you ever been annoyed when you are attacked, and your ally gets involved and scoops up all of your captured cities, essentially having your ally capture your cities without having to declare war in you? I propose that it wouldn't take away fun factor or take a lot of time to have it so that when your allies liberate your cities, those cities revert to your control (or have a diplomatic agreement option in the alliance terms that that will be so). It always annoyed me to death to see my beautiful light-blue cities go white and then allied purple!

Second, and possibly less liked: Maybe there should be one last chance for underground movements. What I mean is, when the last city of a country is captured, that country MAY get one last chance to uprise and take a couple of cities. This is both realistic and potentially fun, since this sort of thing has happened in history and wouldn't you love to take over that enemy nation that had you crushed for 50 years/10 turns? Your last city, if High-culture and captured by low-culture civs would probably like to rebel. Maybe a few units could be crawling around, trying to help out allied liberation (see above). Remember the French underground in WWI? And how many countries have been destroyed for centuries, just to reappear again almost unchanged. I can see this getting annoying if you finally take over your bitter rival and then it just shrugs off your control, so the rebellion should be rare and with a low - not impossible - chance of succeeding. It probably won't get in but I've always liked the idea of me getting one last chance if I look like I'm toast.

Your thoughts?

Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto · June 10, 2001, 21:25

The topic of co-allied liberations has been discussed LOTS AND LOTS!!! But I am glad you brought it up again, I think it needs refreshing.

Here is my liberation model:

Say...you get into a big bad war with another civ, and during that war you lose a couple cities. After a while, you ally with someone, then they help you in your war, and liberate one of your cities. Now, he has your city, and obviously you want it back, you can ask for it back (through diplomacy if course), and he has three choices,
1. he can give it back, and it auto. becomes yours again.
2. He can refuse.
3. He can offer to compromise, for example, in exchange for the liberated city, he offers you 10 gold per turn or something.

If your ally refuses to give your city back, then you have the choices of either ignoring the city and moving on, or stopping the alliance, or compromising for the liberated city.

This would be the same with you if you liberated one of your ally's captured cities.

Inverse Icarus · June 11, 2001, 14:11

i concur with el Diablo

i do not want any of my powers taken away from me.

alliances are temporary in civ.

only one can win.

Adm.Naismith · June 12, 2001, 04:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto
Say...you get into a big bad war with another civ, and during that war you lose a couple cities. After a while, you ally with someone, then they help you in your war, and liberate one of your cities. Now, he has your city, and obviously you want it back, you can ask for it back (through diplomacy if course), and he has three choices,
1. he can give it back, and it auto. becomes yours again.
2. He can refuse.
3. He can offer to compromise, for example, in exchange for the liberated city, he offers you 10 gold per turn or something.

If your ally refuses to give your city back, then you have the choices of either ignoring the city and moving on, or stopping the alliance, or compromising for the liberated city.

This would be the same with you if you liberated one of your ally's captured cities.

Your proposal is good, but I'll prefer two different diplomatic action: when your ally enter at war with you, there should be a general agreement about money, tech, trade pact, etc. to gain for war alliance (as USA did with Great Britain before starting help at WWII). The more you are in trouble, the higher the cost you must pay.

Second diplomatic agreement should be at war end (or war pact end) when you should decide to honor your previus agreement or offer some change to it: the more your ally help you, the more he can ask (did your ally give you enough powerful units? did the war ended with a great victory or you simply survive?).

In any case cities must automatically go back to previus owner: if you want a city as war payment you must ask for it at end war diplomatic point.

Inverse Icarus · June 12, 2001, 07:52

if i want to keep allied cities that i have captured, i will keep them.

i've done this on several occasions, and sometimes a war breaks out of it.

if you don't like it, don't ask for my help next time.

Adm.Naismith · June 12, 2001, 10:36

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
if i want to keep allied cities that i have captured, i will keep them.

i've done this on several occasions, and sometimes a war breaks out of it.

if you don't like it, don't ask for my help next time.

I can't bet on a diplomatic career for you, UberKruX

WWII scenario: USA and Great Britain troops (and their allies) conquer Paris, Rome, West Berlin... and kept them forever

Few years later: a bloody liberation wars start against the despotic Ally...

No, I hope that in Civ 3 the need for strong allegiance is more relevant and useful than establish a worldwide empire.

Dugrik · June 12, 2001, 12:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Adm.Naismith

WWII scenario: USA and Great Britain troops (and their allies) conquer Paris, Rome, West Berlin... and kept them forever

Wasn't this the Soviet Union's plan vis-a-vis East Berlin, Prague, Budapest, and Warsaw?

We never did get a bloody war of liberation, although I guess we were lucky about that.

Inverse Icarus · June 12, 2001, 15:16

sorry for being an autocrat.

but that whole idea of "helping an ally recapture his cities" seems LAME in my opinion.

why would you be allied with such a weakling?

is he your "science biatch"?

paying you 100 gold per turn?

or is she under your desk?

if an ally wants me to send military aid, im all for it, as long as he's with me.

if he loses his own damn cities and expects me to expend money / man power, only to GIVE the cities back, he's smoking crack or soemthing.

KrazyHorse · June 12, 2001, 15:28

You crazy UberKruX? Lets say you got yourself a powerful ally. You going to endanger your alliance just for the sake of keeping one city? If he's as much of a weakling as you think he is, you're probably better off not even having him as an ally, since he'll suck you into needless war. You should have the choice.

Inverse Icarus · June 12, 2001, 16:20

i think you got it reversed.

im the military one here.

and i would watch one of my finest allies die if he had nothing to offer me but friendship.

Kc7mxo · June 13, 2001, 06:43

so, uberkrux, is there any point to allying in your mind?

The point of an alliance, in my mind, has always been for a pair of civs to protect eachother from other nations. And yes, friends protect each other. If the only way for england and germany to stay independent from france is for them to ally, and then england refuses to give back hamburg, their alliance goes poof. and then france takes over. Silly way for things to turn out.

What always annoyed me in civ 2 was that i could be friends with a civ for three thousand years, give them tech, protect them in war, and then for no apperent reason they cancel our alliance and sneak attack me. Huh. Firaxis ought to program grattitude in or something.

Oh, and Uberkrux, do you play diplomacy? I think it would fit your playing style indeed.

Adm.Naismith · June 13, 2001, 08:10

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
if he loses his own damn cities and expects me to expend money / man power, only to GIVE the cities back, he's smoking crack or soemthing.

What's the whole point to have an ally doing to your Civ nothing better than your enemy does?

Also a bit weak ally can give you a help trading resources in exchange of your military help, or giving you free tech, or right of passage to a good point of the map...

If diplomatic part is done well in Civ 3 you must use others tactics than cut throats to any Civ in trouble. Sure, you can win as a world only despot, but this is a game you can win in others ways, and you should for sake of enjoyment.

Grim Leaper · June 13, 2001, 10:38

What about a weak civ who has some rare resources. You could offer them protection for trade. Is that not worthy of an alliance. If they are on the other side of the world, and they are in at war, you help them out so you don't loose your resources. do you really want to have to look after recently captured cities on the other side of the world? Why not just give that civ some protection from your strong army?

I think you should liberate cities depending on your diplomatic agreements

Inverse Icarus · June 13, 2001, 10:58

Quote:

What about a weak civ who has some rare resources.

Quote:

Also a bit weak ally can give you a help trading resources in exchange of your military help, or giving you free tech, or right of passage to a good point of the map...

read all my posts dimwads

i stated that i only help allies that help me in some way. (tech biatch, money, etc)

but seriously now, picture the scenario.

the Romans have rich oil fields, and you have been giving them 50 gold a turn for a few drums of oil. those rich oil-producting cities were taken over by the Greeks. You then go in and take the cities from the Greeks. So now you have 5 or so, already developed size 6 cities, making YOU oil for FREE and your large military presence in the area.

and the Romans want their cities back?

after the million gold I just paid them for the oil I used to make MY tanks that I sent to take over the Greeks cities? I have to give them back? and resume paying THE WEAKLING WHO CANT HOLD HIS OWN CITIES?

sounds like a plan to me.

and IMO, no one would sign an alliance where the terms are "you give me oil and i give you alliance". Sounds more like bullying than a friendship.

Your.Master · June 13, 2001, 16:43

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX

read all my posts dimwads

i stated that i only help allies that help me in some way. (tech biatch, money, etc)

Wow...this is the reason why I want the game to have something so that civs get ticked off at somebody who is a jerk (no offense, I know it's only a game) so that they'll gang up and kill you.

Perhaps as an option, so you still buy their game

June 13, 2001, 22:29

In a game I would used the treaty only to benefit my nation and would if necessary turn on a allied or friend in split second. It is a game only, not life.

Inverse Icarus · June 14, 2001, 00:05

::a sweeping realization hits Uber KruX::

civ is only a game?

::he walks outside and melts::

Theben · June 14, 2001, 00:59

I think Uberkrux's idea of an "ally" is what everyone else would call a "vassal-state".

Rollo_CH · June 14, 2001, 01:37

Quote:

the Romans have rich oil fields, and you have been giving them 50 gold a turn for a few drums of oil. those rich oil-producting cities were taken over by the Greeks. You then go in and take the cities from the Greeks. So now you have 5 or so, already developed size 6 cities, making YOU oil for FREE and your large military presence in the area.

Of course this mean you will meet with your ally (the Romans) after the conquest and discuss the aftermath. This is (i hope), what Firaxis means with their "expanded" diplomacy. Should the Romans demand all their cities back and still ask for 50 gold a turn: run them down!

MORON · June 14, 2001, 01:46

What about allies that are more powerful than you and lose cities due to stupidility or the one turn rail raid. Would you risk it and not give back the city UberKruX?

Adm.Naismith · June 14, 2001, 03:31

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX

read all my posts dimwads

i stated that i only help allies that help me in some way. (tech biatch, money, etc)

I have read it twice, but I misunderstand you: may be because of your joke about "she under your desk"

I understand that in your opinion they aren't good enough points to make an alliance. In fact, you follow that path with your

Quote:

after the million gold I just paid them for the oil I used to make MY tanks that I sent to take over the Greeks cities? I have to give them back? and resume paying THE WEAKLING WHO CANT HOLD HIS OWN CITIES?

sounds like a plan to me.

Yes it is: call it Desert Storm

Quote:

and IMO, no one would sign an alliance where the terms are "you give me oil and i give you alliance". Sounds more like bullying than a friendship.

Ehrrr, it is the usual foreign office duty of superpower, isn'it?

Inverse Icarus · June 14, 2001, 10:28

Quote:

Originally posted by MORON
What about allies that are more powerful than you and lose cities due to stupidility or the one turn rail raid. Would you risk it and not give back the city UberKruX?

more powerful than me?

hasn't happened yet.

and yes, as i said before "all the land is mine, the other civs are my tenants". i guess those are vassal states.

oh and incase you wanted a first hand view of the "expanded diplomacy" i know of a screenshot.

http://www.strategyplanet.com/civili...ges/shot35.jpg

perhaps you havent seen that one yet.

Grumbold · June 14, 2001, 11:13

I hope culture will be a powerful enough factor to make you WANT to give back cities to your allies because it is more convenient to have them trading you goods than having to ruthlessly repress the city culture in order to harvest the resources yourself. I would fully expect any alliance to decay toward hostility if my "Ally" was ruthlessly crushing my culture somewhere on the map, or I theirs.

If culture turns out to be a weak force that is quickly mollified and absorbed in a few turns then the whole concept will be a gimmicky failure. If it keeps forcing you back to the diplomacy table as the cheapest means of achieving what you want then it will be a success.

Inverse Icarus · June 14, 2001, 11:22

grum: i agree.

culture should not be easily subdued.

but it should be able to be subdued by the presence of a large military.

in any case, i just dont want military rule completely phased out.

there have been various instances throughout history.

Minimus · June 15, 2001, 11:44

Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't it be possible for one to reach a very favorable agreement to give back a liberated city ? I had no opportunity (if anybody outside of the dev team had) to play Civ3, but I believe that one could get better deal terms than prewar ones if one has something significant to barter for. For instance, you had a 50 gold per turn for oil deal, it could become a 1 gold per turn for petroleum if a city is given back.
Just my .02$

Grumbold · June 15, 2001, 12:10

Uber: I'm entirely happy with allowing cities to be ruled by any nation that is prepared to station 6+ divisions in the suburbs...provided giving the city back and asking nicely would get you that trade good for the equivalent cost of supporting 2 divisions

What I won't be happy about is if stationing 6 divisions there will see the "rebel" culture assimilate to your culture at one head a turn so that in ten turns or less it is safe to march off and leave a fully pacified city behind you - particularly if your ally stays allied and happy while this goes on.

Kc7mxo · June 16, 2001, 03:27

I think that having to finnacially support the military is really going to hit us warmongers hard. And it is going to cause the kind of alliance you're talking about, where rather than post 6 divisions to guard against rebelling citizens you give the city back and get the oil you want for free.

Inverse Icarus · June 16, 2001, 11:27

it said in a screenshot that agreements (like i give you 50 gold a turn for oil) last until war.

perhaps i missed a "cancel" or "refit" option somewhere.

but imagine you still had to pay them the 50 gold.

stupid romans.

Biddles · June 16, 2001, 21:10

In the Romans being attacked by the greeks scenario, personally I would liberate the cities from the greeks (maybe taking one or two close by greek cities) and ask the greeks for peace. The romans would come up and ask me for their cities back and I would send my tanks into the streets of Rome. I am a tech/builder type when I play, but in that situation (i.e I have my tanks in perfect striking distance of the weak Romans, in a war thats probably going to last five or 6 turns max) then to hell with the romans, i'll take their (supposedly) high culture cities. On the other hand if they were as powerful (or more??) than me and they somehow managed to lose a ciy, yes I would give it back.