Dependable Allies?

Willem · January 26, 2002, 03:16

Soren has confirmed that he has programmed some civs to be a little harder to trade with than others. It's got me to wondering if there's other things he's added as well. One thing that was discussed in another thread was how sometimes you can create a military alliance but the civ does nothing to help out even though they agree to. So it's got me to thinking that maybe some civs are more dependable than others, while some are more likely to leave you in the lurch. Has anyone noticed a pattern of this sort in their dealings with other civs?

Hermann the Lombard · January 28, 2002, 10:49

Hmm...makes sense, and it's a good feature. It's not too hard to figure out who is hard to trade with (other than *everybody*). In my current game I have an alliance with India against Persia, only a few turns after I forced India to sue for peace, fighting me *with* Persia. I can see from damaged units that India is fighting Persia, though no cities have changed hands yet. And Ghandi always expresses gratitude for my help against Persia, even though he's still furious at me. [He attacked me, and not vice versa.]

Willem · January 28, 2002, 14:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Hermann the Lombard
Hmm...makes sense, and it's a good feature. It's not too hard to figure out who is hard to trade with (other than *everybody*). In my current game I have an alliance with India against Persia, only a few turns after I forced India to sue for peace, fighting me *with* Persia. I can see from damaged units that India is fighting Persia, though no cities have changed hands yet. And Ghandi always expresses gratitude for my help against Persia, even though he's still furious at me. [He attacked me, and not vice versa.]

Yeah I've never had any problems with Ghandi, even when trading with him. He definitely seems like the easy going , dependable type. Joan seems to be a little flighty in that regard, though I haven't made very many treaties with her yet, so I don't know for sure. I'll definitely have to keep my eye open for this, it would be nice to know which ones you can count on, if there is this sort of thing happening.

bsklepzig · January 28, 2002, 15:38

I've noticed (playing warlord) that Ghandi seems to assess value in trade more accurately (or is a tougher bargainer). When gold is involved, I can move other civs off their requested price (i.e. when the advisor still says they'll "probably accept." Sometimes up to 5 gold/turn! Ghandi stands pat.

Perhaps a side benefit of AI commercial civs?

Ben

DaveV · January 28, 2002, 15:53

My only alliance experiences thus far have been positive. Montezuma remained faithful through the destruction of three other civs (Zulus, Chinese, and English), sending lots of units to help out. In my current game, Cleopatra has remained steadfast throughout the destruction of two civs (Japanese and Greeks). She also sent units to the front lines, weakening enemy cities and cutting off their resources. The first game was at Monarch level (Apolyton tournament #3; I was Greeks), the current game is at Emperor (I am Romans).

The enthusiasm and loyalty of an ally may also have something to do with relative culture and power rankings. I tend to be very strong in power and relatively weak in culture (especially in this current game with a non-religious, non-scientific civ

).

Jack_www · January 29, 2002, 13:35

In the current game I my playing I am the Germans and the largest civ in the world. The India massed troops at my border and attacked me. Anther time I asked their archer to leave my terrority, and they declared war on me when they did, after that I got the whole world to go to war with them. So i have noticed too the India is a back stabber.