One way ROP?

Carver · June 7, 2002, 15:58

Well... why is there no provision for a one way ROP agreement between civs? The US (and others) conduct military operations throughout the world, yet few nations deploy their militaries here, except for training, so the idea is clearly historical.

Especially when two civs have a military alliance against a third: If B and C (who are in the middle and east respectively) have an alliance against A (who is in the west) B should welcome C's troops into B's territory with open arms.

C should have the option of saying, "look I'll help your sorry arse out and repel the A invasion, but don't come a steppin on my terrotory".

Does this make sense?

Fitz · June 7, 2002, 16:19

Makes perfect sense, but I bet it would be hard to convince an AI to accept that.

It would actually work well if the AI could be made to consider it in conjunction with a military alliance if territorially appropriate, but reject it most of the remaining time. Other appropriate times would be if AI Civ A was mad at AI Civ B, liked the player civ, and was between the two when Civ B and the player were at war. Obviously concesions would be demanded during negotiations in this case.

Edit: Although personally as a player I am usually willing to grant an RoP (for free) when I am the player in the middle, I am always annoyed when the AI considers the RoP to be worth demanding something for. This is pretty rare though. I am actually making 20-45 gp & 0-3 gpt (every 20 turns) in the late ancient era in my current game charging the AI for RoPs since I am strategically positioned in the middle of the continent.

Turambar · June 7, 2002, 16:21

The same thought occured to me too. Also it would be good to get one Civ to go to war with another without you having to declare war too.

Spiffor · June 7, 2002, 16:39

And it will be a pleasure to humiliate a Civ you vainquished by demanding a one-way ROP for the peace treaty. Vae Victis

One way treaties were in Civ2, and are good ways to let the others do the dirty work. I'm quite fond of the "puppet master" feeling in these games.
I'd also like (it's not that important though) to make others declaring trade embargo towards one of my clients, so that I have the monopoly of trade.

Catt · June 7, 2002, 16:49

The question is so straightforward ("Why not have a one-way RoP?") -- or rather, the current implementation (mutual RoP only) is so unnatural -- that I assume the developers thought of it, played with it, and determined that it was thoroughly flawed as a gameplay feature. Perhaps it was terribly unbalancing.

I know that on the higher difficulty levels, for the ancient age and probably much of the middle ages at least, the AI would always have a one-way RoP against the human player -- they would simply demand it.

(think of "settler diarrhea" with a one-way RoP).

So, my guess (only a guess!) is that it didn't work in the game.

Catt

Lucilla · June 7, 2002, 17:16

Catt, your guess sounds very logical to me. In an MP game I could imagine to make a deal with my neighbour that he's allowed to trespass as long as I'm at war with our mutual enemy. As soon as I had a peace treaty with my former ally [Edit: read "enemy" here], I would want this deal cancelled.
In SP you could implement such an agreement that gets automatically cancelled (re-negotiated?) once the civ that allowed trespassing made peace.
I can't imagine that the AI as it is designed now could properly calculate the pros and cons of such a treaty (which doesn't mean it couldn't be programmed that way), but in MP it would certainly be a good option.
I wonder what the effort would be to make the AI intelligent enough for these one-way treaties? I'm not experienced in programming AI, so I only have a vague imagination of what would be involved.

Harovan · June 7, 2002, 17:32

I made a proposal like this a few months ago. The idea was, to leave some kind of "occupation forces" for a limited time in a country after making peace. This would be the only way to force the AI to accept this. I find that feature cool and would be happy if it would be implemented.

Catt · June 7, 2002, 18:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Lucilla
Catt, your guess sounds very logical to me. In an MP game I could imagine to make a deal with my neighbour that he's allowed to trespass as long as I'm at war with our mutual enemy. As soon as I had a peace treaty with my former ally, I would want this deal cancelled.
In SP you could implement such an agreement that gets automatically cancelled (re-negotiated?) once the civ that allowed trespassing made peace.
I can't imagine that the AI as it is designed now could properly calculate the pros and cons of such a treaty (which doesn't mean it couldn't be programmed that way), but in MP it would certainly be a good option.
I wonder what the effort would be to make the AI intelligent enough for these one-way treaties? I'm not experienced in programming AI, so I only have a vague imagination of what would be involved.

A very good point -- I unthinkingly only commented with respect to an SP game without thinking of MP. When MP is available, a unilateral RoP makes absolute sense.

Catt

Inverse Icarus · June 7, 2002, 18:46

great idea.

dexters · June 8, 2002, 00:42

Great idea. One way ROPs have actually occured to me as well

HazieDaVampire · June 9, 2002, 08:35

i'd love an ocupation force, and somthing like what the british did in france at the start of WW2. We infact defended france better than the french did, but we had to pull back to prevent us being surrounded!

Jon Shafer · June 9, 2002, 10:35

Who needs a RoP agreement. The AI will just trounce through your country whether you like it or not anyways, and the only way to stop them is to go to war.

It wasn't implimented most likely because of the effort necassary to put it in. Civ 3 was rushed as it is (as we all know), and adding something like that which wouldn't have all that much impact on the game as it is was most likely deemed inefficient. I hate it when things like that happen for that reason.

I know why something was excluded/trimmed down/dumbed, but it still doesn't fix the problem.

Lucilla · June 9, 2002, 11:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip
Who needs a RoP agreement. The AI will just trounce through your country whether you like it or not anyways, and the only way to stop them is to go to war.

Without the RoP, the AI can't use your roads / railroads, so that slows him down quite significantly.

Akka · June 9, 2002, 11:43

It's already close to impossible to make the AI accept fait deal. I just can't even imagine how you would make it accept a one-way RoP

Jon Shafer · June 9, 2002, 11:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
It's already close to impossible to make the AI accept fait deal. I just can't even imagine how you would make it accept a one-way RoP

Could be useful for MP though.

Sava · June 9, 2002, 11:54

It would be nice, but I doubt the AI would ever accept it. Countries in Civ aren't like countries in the real world. Civ is basically a collection of superpowers, or strong nations striving to be superpowers. The US, other than its allies, usually only stomps through smaller countries who have no choice. You don't see US forces in Russia, China, or India.

Inverse Icarus · June 9, 2002, 13:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
It's already close to impossible to make the AI accept fait deal. I just can't even imagine how you would make it accept a one-way RoP

when you've slapped one around and taken several cities, you'd be suprised what they offer for peace (a few cities, 150 gold per turn, techs, luxuries).

Jon Shafer · June 9, 2002, 14:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Lucilla
Without the RoP, the AI can't use your roads / railroads, so that slows him down quite significantly.

Good point, I hadn't thought of that.

Akka · June 9, 2002, 19:04

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX

when you've slapped one around and taken several cities, you'd be suprised what they offer for peace (a few cities, 150 gold per turn, techs, luxuries).

That is not a deal, that is extorsion

Seriously, the idea of one-way RoP is a good one.
But the real fix for the diplomacy comes by evaluation of the deals in an absolute way and no more in a relative one. It's that that f*ck up all the negociations.

Stuie · June 10, 2002, 08:26

While we're at it, why not allow a "Declare War On..." option as well. That way I can pay Germany a whole bunch to go fight the Zulu without declaring war on the Zulu myself. That's one thing I miss from SMAC. Also, a "Make Peace With..." option is needed.

Sava · June 10, 2002, 08:32

Proxy wars would be cool