c166# MEMO TO ISABELLA, QUEEN OF SPAIN

May 13, 2001, 20:03

quote:

Dear Isabella, thou great lady of the north country, ruler of many units, sovereign of all things yellow. Your old ally, here, Mr. Raingoon....

[This message has been edited by MarkG (edited May 13, 2001).]

Father Beast · May 13, 2001, 20:34

Memo to Raingoon from Isabella (captured in transit)
"We are cancelling this worthless alliance!"

(next turn)
"we have had enough of your insolence, prepare for WAR!"

Spanish army breaks teeth on mongols on way to china.

ROTFL!

Father Beast · May 13, 2001, 20:46

but seriously, you make some points on the civ2 shortcomings. I don't know if its all that feasible for all the improvements you suggest, but some of them, surely.
maybe you can negotiate for spain to give you the needed units. they have said that almost anything can be negotiated for. don't know If I can support all those, though...
I don't see how you can guarantee that your ally will help significantly. maybe with the message that "7 mechanized infantry are now yours to command (but we still own and support them and want them back at the end of the war). maybe that would work.
I would distrust the message "5 of our units are on their way", and watch as they wander about and pillage some land somewhere, or maybe gang up on an elephant on the side, and then go home.

I'm not sure what is feasible. I think a lot of the time, they will think they have you over a barrel when you need help, and will send only tokens unless you pay through the nose. very little altruism in civ.

on a side note, I wonder if they can implement the Master of Orion diplomacy feature where I would go to war with someone, and their enemies would warm up to me. I found that wa one of the best ways to move toward an alliance in Moo. in civ, I am just baffled on how to get alliances. sometimes they just happen!

ancient · May 13, 2001, 21:18

I think it would also be nice if you could get your allies to take over citys that used to be yours and give them to you when taken over.. like imagine if USA decided in WW2 it would take over Paris from the Germans and keep it.. its not very realistic or nice especially if your good allies.

(sorry about the typos fixed it now) [This message has been edited by ancient (edited May 14, 2001).]

(dam did it again)

[This message has been edited by ancient (edited May 14, 2001).]
should be all better now
[This message has been edited by ancient (edited May 14, 2001).]

Wittlich · May 13, 2001, 21:30

Bravo Raingoon! Bravo!

A very funny article based on the facts of CIV2. A well-written piece of work!

------------------
After all is said and done, usually more is said than done.
[This message has been edited by Wittlich (edited May 13, 2001).]

Shadowstrike · May 13, 2001, 21:43

All of this bekons the question..... What of Ferdenind?

Cyclotron · May 13, 2001, 21:48

quote:

Originally posted by ancient on 05-13-2001 09:18 PM
i think it would also be nice if you could get your allys to take over citys tht used to be yours and give them to you when taken over.. like imagine if us decided it would take over paric from the germans and keep it.. its not very realistic or nice especially if your good allys

This is an excellent idea, and one I have contemplated. It should be an incident to let an enemy take an allies' city and then take it back, keeping it from your ally. Allies should be able to request their cities back when they feel able to defend themselves, and if you agree they get their city back and all your units in the city are taken back to your nearest city.

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "The Rajah of Resources"

ajbera · May 14, 2001, 01:10

Outstanding work, Raingoon. Probably the best overall column I've seen yet.

Grumbold · May 14, 2001, 05:48

I share your hope that this time out allies jointly prosecuting a war will actually do so effectively. If the AI is capable of recognising and acting against any major threat this will be true. Unfortunately if you want to win Civ that is likely to be you

Mathphysto · May 14, 2001, 10:59

This is a quoted analysis from the textbook, "A History of the World,"

A beautiful and moving plea. Certainly this captures the anguish poor Raingoon felt at having failed his countrymen and led them into the shackles of the Mongols. His angst is strikingly portrayed in his biting sarcastic wit. History will show, however, that Raingoon had just cause to complain to Isabella. She was, indeed, a leader severely deficient in intelligence, flexibility, and realism. Raingoon, and all others who had run afoul of Isabella's senseless babbling, could only hope that her successor to the throne would be more adept at diplomatic affairs.

Adm.Naismith · May 14, 2001, 11:35

Raingoon, great column!

quote:

Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 05-13-2001 09:48 PM
It should be an incident to let an enemy take an allies' city and then take it back, keeping it from your ally. Allies should be able to request their cities back when they feel able to defend themselves, and if you agree they get their city back and all your units in the city are taken back to your nearest city.

As in SMAC, if you are an ally you should be able to left your units inside ally borders and cities. IMO, If you are allied fighting a war, you should be allowed to build military bases, as fortress, harbours and airfields as part of term of mutual military assistance.

If you conquer back a city of your ally, it must be automatically turned back to it, no choice! Just if diplomatic table can cope with it you can have some benefits for every city free back.

In SMAC you can coordinate an attack with allied AI, but the results aren't good. It will be best if Firaxis let you take direct control of allied troops, as Father Beast suggested so good.
Just to avoid you use them as "cannon fodder", let them go back to AI control (retreated from front line) if their losses are so much greater than your own units losses, or if they aren't stacked with one of your unit (sharing the same fate).

raingoon · May 14, 2001, 21:33

Thanks for the feedback everybody, and I agree with Father Beast's ideas -- actually, the problem in the game is the same in any war. You can't have two separate heads trying to effectively execute one plan. Every allied army has a Supreme Commander, and I agree that should be modeled in the game. Would solve a lot of problems, also would make you really think twice before you handed over a dozen of your own units for the AI to command.

Viva la Supreme Commander idea!

Admiral PJ · May 16, 2001, 18:11

What annoys me is when an alliance is broken all your units get sent right back to your home country. At least their units are removed from your territory. It would be better for your troops to to be moved just outside the ex-allies borders.

Maybe if an alliance isn't kept its government falls, and they get a worse worldwide Respect value..

But these things could all work against you if you want to cancel an alliance quicker.. but it would make you think twice about getting into a long alliance.

Its best to ally with certain types of civ in civ2/TOT like the Americans, and keep more powerful than the other and they'll not break it off i think.
Romans seem pretty good to ally with too..

note: The civ2 civs were all different in their strategies etc, So civ3's different civ modifiers won't be so new, this was already in 2 a bit - I mean the way the Aztecs and Zulus (maybe the vikings,Japanese? etc)were especially good in conquering - though it wasn't that realistic that the aztecs often became more advanced than the europeans (I'm sure the aztecs had a research bonus for everything).

Admiral Pete

Liked your letter to Isabella, if only they had more speech in civ3, so isabella could speak over your speaker in a spanish accent -'no ally with you any more, you smell like a mule .. and all your chinese soldiers are lame.. ADIOS! '

dainbramaged13 · May 16, 2001, 18:32

O M G that is so funny, and yet so true. That's one of the reasons I stopped playing civ2, because the allies and enemies were so stupid... also, another idead definetely worth mentioning is strict rules in scenarios, such as in ww2, the Germans don't make peace with anyone, becasue it's totally unrealistic, and the Allies (Allies, France, Russia) don't break up (except maybe Russia - Maybe). I find myself playing as the allies in civ2 and all of a sudden, the Russians are attacking my recently captured german cities, the germans are asking for a peace treaty every turn, and the french are attacking LONDON! This is not how it should be... just a thought to add to Raingoon's awesome column.

May 17, 2001, 04:51

i'm glad to announce that we recieved another excellent piece from mr raingoon....

i dont recall the exact number of articles that are currently in the "posting queue" though...

Sirotnikov · May 18, 2001, 20:34

quote:

If you conquer back a city of your ally, it must be automatically turned back to it, no choice! Just if diplomatic table can cope with it you can have some benefits for every city free back.

No it shouldnt' be automatical. There should be a penalty in relationship if you dno't do this however. Just look how USSR "freed" poland, east germany, hungaria, romania etc. and then gave the cities back to the people's representatives. IT accidentally hapenned that those were extremely communistic and mostly puppet governments of the USSR. But that was completely coincidental

[This message has been edited by Sirotnikov (edited May 18, 2001).]

ancient · May 19, 2001, 09:27

USSR was never allied with poland, east germany, hungary or any other of those countries.. they were merely neutral..