Embargos

M. le Comte · August 23, 2001, 04:12

I've been playing (and winning) to a Emp Game in Civ2. In it, the civs I were in peace with kept trading techs with the civs I was at war with.
I tried to make peaceful civs declare war to my enemies and got allied with them. They did, but they soon made peace and dealed the techs I had just given to them with my opponents.

Annoying.

Is there any possibility to trade a "technological embargo" trough diplomatical relations against an other civ. That would prevent this kind of things from happening. In the real world, even if France doesn't make war to Irak, whereas France is allied with the United States and with the UK which keep bombing Saddam Hussein's country, France doesn't trade advanced technologies with Irak. It's logical.

Civ 3 should take that kind of agreements into account.

Tiberius · August 23, 2001, 04:29

Quote:

France doesn't trade advanced technologies with Irak

Are you 100% sure about this?

You're right, of course. It happened to me many times: I wanted to help an ally, gave him a modern tech just to see in the next turn that they are trading it with my enemies!

I doubt it however that Civ3 could handle agreements like: "I give you gunpowder, but you must promise that you won't share it with my enemies!"

...
...but, signing a "tech embargo" agreement, where you (and your allies) can't change any tech with a third civ, sounds like a good idea. It should be exactly like a trade embargo, but using techs instead of goods.

Grim Legacy · August 23, 2001, 08:31

Though I agree the idea of a tech embargo sounds nice, I can't help but snugly laugh at people who give techs to computer opponents!

Admiral · August 23, 2001, 08:57

In the latest "ask the Civ team" (something like that) Firaxis stated that you could have trade embargoes. Maybe this also effects tech trade.

btw, the link is in the ask the civ team thread.

shade · August 23, 2001, 09:10

Grim: this is most of the time the only way for the AI to keep up with you.
I really like the embargo idea.

Shade

General Ludd · August 23, 2001, 09:17

The problem here is the hyperactive and spastic AI, which can't go 2 turns with out starting a war, making peace and changing goverments.

shade · August 23, 2001, 09:58

Shade

Grim Legacy · August 24, 2001, 06:38

Quote:

Originally posted by shade
Grim: this is most of the time the only way for the AI to keep up with you.
I really like the embargo idea.

Shade

LOL Why would you want the AI to keep up with you? As if a computer controlled civ is ever a valuable ally!

Note that I am very much aware that the AI trades tech, and that this the way to maintain the challenge, but that I am addressing the poor blighters who are foolish enough to aid this process by giving techs away!

I never give away any tech, also because it is far too easy for the AI to turn this small, limited help to a particular civ into a true bonanza of evil AI tech exchanges (play Deity and witness 4 exchanges each turn), yielding great benefits to all enemy civs.

M. le Comte · August 24, 2001, 07:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Grim Legacy

I never give away any tech, also because it is far too easy for the AI to turn this small, limited help to a particular civ into a true bonanza of evil AI tech exchanges (play Deity and witness 4 exchanges each turn), yielding great benefits to all enemy civs.

I DO trade technologies. With a good and efficient diplomatic system, it becomes a very heavy weapon during dark ages. Marco Polo's (with eventually the Great Library), and then you can syphon the whole world's techs.

Example: Roman and Zulu have not met yet

Situation at the begining:
Roman have Invention
Zulu have Feodalism and Philosophy
I have Philosophy

I play French (...) who have contact with both of them throug MP's
I trade Philosophy for Invention with Roman
And then I trade Invention for Feodalism with Zulu.

So at the end :
Roman take advantages from Philosophy and Invention
Zulu and I take advantages of Feodalism, Philosophy and Invention

So I was as advanced as the Roman, and less than the Zulu
I'm now more advanced than the Roman and as advanced as the Zulu

Tech embargos has little to do with tech trade. Tech trade is a very important part of my strategy, but embargos could be a good way to prevent some... diplomatical accidents to occure.

And I never bargain to give tech technologies to an opponent... when I keep a military advance on him

shade · August 24, 2001, 07:18

Quote:

LOL Why would you want the AI to keep up with you? As if a computer controlled civ is ever a valuable ally!

What is an ally??

(just beeing sarcastic)
=> the only reason why I sometimes do it is to get some challenge,It sometimes gets borring just running over the major AI civ(even in Diety).

Quote:

(play Deity and witness 4 exchanges each turn),

not only in Diety,and not just 4/turn(or do you mean 4 exchanges between each 2 civs per turn

)

Shade

Grim Legacy · August 24, 2001, 07:23

I think we have very different playstyles. I am eventually always ahead of my opponents, and when I lack a few inventions I still don't want to obtain them through trade because the cost of researching them on my own is smaller than the cost of trading.

How?

Because every invention you get by trade/goodie huts incurs an extra research penalty, slowing down your research rate. The benefit of an extra tech is largely absorbed by the difficulty of discovering a new one. And I am rarely in a situation that I desperately need some unit/building so that the added turns that I can enjoy that particular tech aren't very useful.

Secondly, the cost of trade rises steeply due to the AI-trading I described. Only in the case you describe in which you trade the same tech to two civs for different ones at the same time you can lessen the cost a bit. Note that your tech will still be traded for X with Civ4, yielding Tech Y, which is in turn traded between the Romans and the Zulus etc.

campmajor! · August 24, 2001, 07:32

Yes, alliances weren't much helpful in civ2.

If you asked them to attack an enemy, they say they do it, but never attack a single unit of them...

The only reason I sometimes made an alliance was because that nice lady (foreign advisor) asked me to....

shade · August 24, 2001, 08:25

trading techs doesn't seem to work that much with me(except when the AI really want's something from me) otherwise it's most of thetime something like "we have advanced far ahead..."(while I'm at least 10 or 20 techs ahead)
=>getting AI techs 2 words: diplomat ,Spy

Shade

Grim Legacy · August 24, 2001, 09:07

Quote:

Originally posted by shade

not only in Diety,and not just 4/turn(or do you mean 4 exchanges between each 2 civs per turn

)

Shade

I wouldn't know about that, never played below Deity level.

U asked for it!

barefootbadass · August 24, 2001, 09:25

You shouldn't worry too much about giving the other civs techs(except for spaceship building ones, and maybe nukes if you're an environmentalist) cause the computer is so inept at using them

Anyway, I really hope they've improved the AI in civ3 although thats the one department I'm most pessimistic about as the release date approaches

barefootbadass · August 24, 2001, 09:31

Another thing, I don't think you'll be the specialized research tracks(like going for democracy while ignoring many early techs) in civ3 because they seem to group techs by ages. I'm not sure how this will work but it will probably limit what you can do skipping useless techs to go for the really badass techs(like democracy in civ2)

Admiral · August 24, 2001, 09:43

Democracy was evil

My senate was probably made up entirely of double agents.
The only reason to give the AI techs in Civ 2 is to get a civ off your back while annihilating another civ.

Admiral · August 24, 2001, 09:48

Democracy was evil

My senate was probably made up entirely of double agents.
The only reason to give the AI techs in Civ 2 is to get a civ off your back while annihilating another civ.

Skanky Burns · August 24, 2001, 10:56

You can say that again *grin*

Democracy was annoying... wouldnt even allow me to conduct 'peace-keeping' operations on enemy civilizations...
I just wanted to keep the peace in all their cities!! hehe

shade · August 24, 2001, 11:29

==> Long live Communism

Shade

BlackStone · August 24, 2001, 11:33

I think that M. le Comte is right. The diplomacy needs to be more transparent specifically on intentions of othe civs and their need to be more controls to be able to deal with them more effectively.

Sometimes my major opponent is at such a distance from me, having interfered in all of my neighbours enough to make them less then effective

, that i choose a civ that i can build up with money and techs to cause my enemy problems until i can deal with them myself. Unfortunately i ussually find that the ungrateful F***ers that i have helped just become my next problem . Lets see a bit of grateful loyalty built in to the AI so that when you help a civ they will automatically consider you (their major sponsor) in future interactions with other nations. Now that would be nice.