Can trade be considered as an act of war???

winzity · May 16, 2002, 18:44

Yesterday I was in a Civ 2 game there one player wanted to do agreements like those that are normal for techstealing.. He wanted to sign an agreement there i got 3 traderoutes for a tech amd after that he could not accept any more caravans...
The first point is that the game DON'T have any options for stopping caravans, even in war you must accept them. The only thing you can do is to kill them. But in really life there is defference between tradewars and wars there humans get killed...

For me a peaceful caravan trading goods the people in your cities demands can't be compared with hostile actions like techstealings. What is your opinion?

I had Map making and he don't had it so he could not attack the caravans if they was delivered from sea... His opinion would only be a diplomacy complain then... Don't matter he thought he had right, to claim it. What is the ethics, if there are any... Is trade an act of war? And he should declare war? I don't think so, trade is peaceful actions, and good for both! He could trade back.. Would a war give more advantage, especially in a situation there he not had a target he could attack! Now you say: "He only put up ICY diplomatic relations", yes he did, but what should the advantage of a such ICY attitude be? If somebody have an answer please tell me!

Confused caravans arrived in Hamburg

finbar · May 16, 2002, 19:09

Your opponent is entitled to put in place any conditions he likes. Prior to the game. It's up to you whether you accept them or not.

Trade is often used by players as a political tool within the game. Some players will demand a share of any trade delivered to their cities; some will refuse to receive any trade because it benefits the sender of the trade. It's only another example of the way various elements of the game have been "customised" by players.

rah · May 16, 2002, 20:00

If I can deliver them, I really don't care what the other person thinks, (unless we had an agreement, and agreements can be broken). I have no problem killing inbound caravans. If I see a boat coming up, if I'm fast enough, I'll remove workers from trade squares.

finbar · May 16, 2002, 20:09

That's the standard non-aggressive defence against unwanted incoming trade. But the point remains, any tactic is a legitimate tactic providing it doesn't contravene established house rules.

atawa · May 17, 2002, 13:14

I was the player that wanted a tech for those 3 caravans.
Since at this stage in the game and with my trade 3 caravans will mean an extra tech and a shitload of money for Winzity, I thought it only fair I would get something in return.

You approached me even before we met with the question if we could trade so 'we can stop the evil germans' your allies btw

All we Mongols want is just to be at peace and trade with our neighbours but not on a one-way street

War4ever · May 17, 2002, 19:53

Quote:

Originally posted by atawa

All we Mongols want is just to be at peace and trade with our neighbours but not on a one-way street

Mongols don't trade, we war.....

atawa · May 17, 2002, 19:59

SHHHH!!!!!!!

They dont have to know

War4ever · May 17, 2002, 20:06

rotflmao......ok we dont' want the secret to be let out

Messer Niccolò · May 17, 2002, 20:58

Winzity, I think that atawa did the right thing. Well, at least he tried to offer you something in exchange for something.
Basically you get more than him from your caravans so he told something like: "ok you can trade in my country... but you have to pay taxes as well..."

I image Mongol leader "you give tech, I let pass three camels. Accept this deal or pay the consequences"

... consequences? Schmonsequence!

It's up to you

let's "tax" him for something else!

I love this game!

DrFell · May 17, 2002, 23:20

Yeah trade against one side's will is an act of war - not that that stops me doing it all the time though.

War4ever · May 18, 2002, 00:29

if you can get in...... then trade away......but you can't always charm your way through the front door

deity · May 18, 2002, 02:07

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
If I can deliver them, I really don't care what the other person thinks, (unless we had an agreement, and agreements can be broken). I have no problem killing inbound caravans. If I see a boat coming up, if I'm fast enough, I'll remove workers from trade squares.

I was told that this was now regarded a cheat and was even included in Rah Rules??

Please explain!

Makeo · May 18, 2002, 03:16

just because something is in the most holy of holies, rah rules, doesn't mean its applicable to every game of civ on the planet and just because something is not allowed in rah rules doesn't make it a cheat.

deity · May 18, 2002, 03:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Makeo
just because something is in the most holy of holies, rah rules, doesn't mean its applicable to every game of civ on the planet and just because something is not allowed in rah rules doesn't make it a cheat.

Well of course!

But very few games, if any, specify whether this is OK, so I assume it's NOT OK unless agreed?

The default situation must be that Rah rules applies, I'd say.

markusf · May 18, 2002, 03:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Makeo
just because something is in the most holy of holies, rah rules, doesn't mean its applicable to every game of civ on the planet and just because something is not allowed in rah rules doesn't make it a cheat.

Bad memories from some duels?

DrFell · May 18, 2002, 06:23

How can you stop people moving their workers onto lower trade terrain though (ocean/river to forest for example)? Not against the rules but the same effect if you're quick enough. Sounds like a really silly rule to me.

atawa · May 18, 2002, 06:37

Yeah, these kind of rules only work if you, like the Rah/Ming/et all group, play with almost the same people every game and have develloped a relation where you can trust the other players.

For most of us this allas doesnt aply.

Hydey · May 18, 2002, 07:44

If someone is microing and moves a worker from a trade special to a forest at the same time an opponent delivers trade , you are suggesting this is a cheat. Get a life. he just might need the extra shield to finish a wonder.

deity · May 18, 2002, 08:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Hydey
If someone is microing and moves a worker from a trade special to a forest at the same time an opponent delivers trade , you are suggesting this is a cheat. Get a life. he just might need the extra shield to finish a wonder.

Unless I'm mistaken, I think what is meant by Rah is the wholesale reduction in your workers use of squares, ie all becoming low arrows or entertainers just during the period of your oponents cara deliveries then switching them back as you'd like them for your turn.... this right?

Hydey · May 18, 2002, 08:42

nothing wrong with that

Deity Dude · May 18, 2002, 11:37

i gotta agree that there is nothing wrong with that - to ne that is a good defensive strategy

atawa · May 18, 2002, 11:48

I agree it ranks up there with selling off an improvement when you see a dip comming to bribe you and no chance to kill it.

deity · May 18, 2002, 19:26

OK, if the consensus is that it's OK to do I might try it out!

I think Markus suggested to me that it was a cheat and was incl in Rah rules???

Pesonally I'd rather it was banned but if everyone is using it...

It's a fine line between just going ahead and quietly doing stuff like this only to find out later that others brand it as cheating and use it as an ecuse to quit games. But once it's discussed in the threads I feel easier about it and comfortable about trying it out.

But forget black clicking! Arrrgh.

But in the absence of other pre-game rules I assume that things NOT normally allowed in Rah Rules are NOT ON.

Fair assumption?

DrFell · May 18, 2002, 19:33

Some people will use any flimsy excuse to quit a game they're losing... including branding stuff like the 'reducing trade' tactic a cheat.

rah · May 18, 2002, 20:04

Looking at the "RAH" rules thread., this has not been discussed. Or the opposite (maxing cities for trade) The only related item is no caravan re-homing. This conversation should probably be discussed there. My personal thoughts are that maxing occasionally is not a problem. (hard to stop) The issue is slow play, so if this is done a lot and slows down your turn, people may desire not to play with you.

Reducing for incoming, I don't see as a problem at all since you're not doing it during your turn and has no impact on game speed.

But it should probably be discussed to see what everyone else thinks about it.

RAH

Deity Dude · May 19, 2002, 12:48

Quote:

Originally posted by deity
But forget black clicking! Arrrgh.

I'm with you deity. I'd be willing to play no black clicking if everyone else was.

DrFell · May 19, 2002, 14:41

Impossible to prevent, you can even do it by accident.

Deity Dude · May 19, 2002, 17:04

Accident is one thing - I'd be willing to say no intentional black clicking

Makeo · May 19, 2002, 22:05

Quote:

Originally posted by deity
OK, if the consensus is that it's OK to do I might try it out!

But in the absence of other pre-game rules I assume that things NOT normally allowed in Rah Rules are NOT ON.

Fair assumption?

No. I haven't read the thread. I don't know what RAH rules are.

Alexander's Horse · May 19, 2002, 23:42

I'll bet Deity does that trade arrow thing when you trade with him - judging from my recent results trading with his miserly civ

I often announce my borders are closed to all or certain players if the trade is going to impede me. Having caras plodding through your empire can be a real nuisance when your trying to move units around. It can also be a profitable way for an opponent to gather intelligence on your civ.