Alliances

[TechWins]

Another thing about alliances is that when you liberate an allies city that city should automatically be turned over to your ally. If you decide not to turn over that liberated city then you would automatically be cancelling your alliance. This is something that doesn't really add much to the fun aspect of the game nor does it take away from fun while adding some realism.

[wotan321]

...time management.... what is this strange thing you speak of...?

Oh, back to the thread....

....lets hope with the repeated claims of improved diplomacy, that alliances will actually be a part of the game. In Civ2, you'd make an alliance, make peace or friendship with a technology, and two turns later be attacked and your technology given away to every other computer player.... it made alliances useless and counter productive.

Have there been any hints on screenshots that alliances and partnerships may last for more than a few turns?

[TechWins]

it made alliances useless and counter productive

That's exactly my point. Alliances are pointless in Civ2 as they sholdn't be in Civ3. Many alliances have saved a lot of people's asses in wars.

[wotan321]

Other than Culture and borders being added, this would have to be one of the shining additions to the Civ game. Alliances throughout history were an overpowering factor in decision making by leaders, and the dynamic would really improve this game.

If my AI enemies had to take my ally's might into consideration, it would really open up my options during a game. As it is in Civ2, your friends treat you the same as your enemies, alliances were only useful in the turn you used them.

In Civ2, leaders/civs had personalities, like militaristic or perfectionistic. If the Civ3 AI could reflect that with long term friendships, that would be a whole new dimension to the game that would significantly increase gameplay.

[wotan321]

...and TechWins, getting back to your suggestion about capturing the recently captured city of an ally... I don't know how the game logic works, but it seems to be that culture is an attribute of each city, and then there is a cumulative civ culture number, like there is with Civ2 city science and money. But if my Greek ally's city of Sparta is captured by the Aztecs, and I take Sparta next turn, then diplomatically I should return it to Greece. It would be nice if each city maintained (in AI memory) a score for the strength of each culture for that city alone, with a heavy weighing of the score going toward the city that founded it. The combined scores of the cultures there would determine the difficulty of a conqueror to keep the city, and if it did revolt, which civ it would side with.

It may be the case that all we will be able to do is earn brownie points for selling or giving the city back to our ally after we take it, use it for diplomatic trade-offs. But.... it would be nice if we had the option to immediately give it away, or keep it to trade, with the related negative effects of either choice.

...and again, to tie this back to the thread.... such actions between civs would only be fun if they had real, long term effects on relationships between civs. As it works now, I can agree to help Greece against the Aztecs by giving them a city, money, two technologies and my brother's Buick, and in two turns they will declare war on me, ally with the Aztecs and give the Aztecs my two technologies as Montezuma drives off in my brother's car! I experimented over the years with just giving and giving and giving to buy the friendship of AI civs, and their personality and my generosity never made any difference.

[Almadyr IV]

... what about an "alliance grid" where all the known civs alliances/wars are indicated?
and why there is no "borders" indicated on the map? Something that makes me go crazy is when others build cities in "my" territory!!!
C'mon let's be real!
It is like a mexican bunch of people goes in central USA and says "ok we settled, this now is Mexican land and this is our Mexican city..."
And no troops movement should be allowed unless a special authorization or something similar, in other civ territory (supposing the existence of borders)...

[TechWins]

Almadyr, if you want to talk about borders I have a thread called Importance of Borders. Just go to search, put the title as Importance of Borders, and my user name as TechWins. I wrote a lot about why borders are so important. The thread itself didn't get much attention, though.

[Almadyr IV]

Well.. I think the two things to be quite related... :rant
Ok, no problem alliance should be more appreciated since apart from getting some money or some basic tech it doesn't seem to be one of the major issues of the game (and definitely it shouldn't be)... maybe suggestions for Civ 3... (ok, ok I'll go to the thread related to the suggestion for civ 3 )

[TechWins]

and definitely it shouldn't be

I think you mean "and definitely it should be".

Well.. I think the two things to be quite related... :rant
Ok, no problem alliance should be more appreciated since apart from getting some money or some basic tech it doesn't seem to be one of the major issues of the game

I find that alliances are more of a neusence than a helper. I always have to protect my allies, give them free techs, and help them out with whatever else they need. What do they do for me, nothing. I do this all for what then? So they can break off our alliance as soon as I deny their DEMAND of sharing one of my technologies with them. There's no point in having an ally. I hope that Civ3 is quite the contrary.

[wotan321]

TechWins, yours is a good point. The way alliances have worked in Civ2 wasn't realistic or fun.

But it looks like that in Civ3, with the ongoing trade and diplomatic agreements for payments or luxuries or resources, alliances may actually be benficial to a HP too. The AI will be much more "motivated" to stick to an alliance.

Lets hope so anyway, cuz it would really add some fun and realism to the game.