But I was on your side!!

Sisawat · January 29, 2003, 22:54

I am not very good at CivIII yet; my warlord game with 12 civs has been a learning experience.

Around 1500, I was seriously behind in tech and trying to catch up by going making as much money through trade as possible, since I was loaded with luxuries and little else. All the other nations seemed accomodating. I was trading with the Arabs when the other AI nations suddenly and inexplicably started a war of annihiliation against them.

By 1800 they were completely destroyed, previous to which I had participated in a trade embargo against them with the Koreans, since the offered more money that I was getting otherwise. About 1870, I go attempt some luxury trades with the Mongols, who participated in the war against the Arabs as one of the principal attackers. The Mongols tell me that can't trade with me because of my trecherous trade embargo against the Arabs.

Who they and the Ottomans destroyed.

WTF? Bug? Huh?

Wittlich · January 29, 2003, 23:08

Yes, I've experienced that same trade embargo "bug" in past games I've played. It's almost as if the civilization that throws this up in your face is just looking for an excuse to deny your request!

I believe that Firaxis needs to readdress the AI actions involving embargos.

Also, once you have started an embargo, you're screwed. The embargo lasts for what, 20 turns? And if your diplomatic situation changes in the mean time, you can't cancel the embargo or do anything about it.

I say if a civilization implements an embargo, they can also cancel it - just like declaring war then a few turns later declaring peace (if the opponent civ concurs). It just makes sense!

Jaybe · January 29, 2003, 23:59

You do not always have control of events in global politics, either in real life or in Civ3. You broke an agreement when your trade embargo was broken -- by the destruction of the target of your embargo!

This has been the subject of many a thread. Old news. The way it is. Now you know, and can be (mentally) prepared for next time.

Sisawat · January 30, 2003, 00:19

I was perfectly prepared for fallout from my actions, it just makes no sense that the destroyer of a civilization would give a damn how I dealt with the one that they destroyed, given that my actions were in line with their war effort (which, incidentally, the ENTIRE world was behind).

The US isn't about to turn around to the UK and say, 'ok! now that we're done mutually bombing Iraq out of existence, there really is this matter of how you had treated them! Going along with our sanctions! The very idea.'

If the subject has been done to death though, sorry about the redundant post.

Jaybe · January 30, 2003, 01:04

Sisawat,
Yes, it always hits us by surprise when something in the game occurs which seems contrary to reality. It took me forever (3-4 days) to figure out how to use cruise missiles over a year ago.

Wittlich · January 30, 2003, 01:14

But the point still remains that this is, in fact, a bug since the civilization telling you that you're untrustworthy is because that same civilization annilated the civilization you had an embargo aganst.

Jaybe, I understand the principle of "not having control" of global politics.... but come on! using the excuse of being untrustworthy in this instance is just lame.

Thoth · January 30, 2003, 01:25

Sisawat: Did you have active per turn deals with the Arabs when you embargoed them?

Sisawat · January 30, 2003, 01:51

Yes I did.

Which mean its not really a bug, just an unimplemented trap. The Mongol AI probably assessed the credibility hit against me without considering the fact that they were at war with the Arabs. Its just kinda frustrating; I'm still learning the ropes of this, its alot different than CivII.

I'm basically out to find out if this was an acknowledged bug or a general limitation of the AI. It seems that its the former.

wilbill · January 30, 2003, 10:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Sisawat I'm basically out to find out if this was an acknowledged bug or a general limitation of the AI. It seems that its the former.

Well since you broke an existing trade agreement when you signed on to the Trade Embargo, I'd say it's neither. There are plenty of ways to take a rep hit without intentionally breaking an agreement. When you take a rep hit, all the AI's hold you accountable for it. Being blamed by the guiltier party may not be pleasant, but it's both human nature and AI nature. You may have short term allies in Civ 3, but there are no friends.

Jamski · January 30, 2003, 10:41

If you were prepared to turn on your Arab allies, then the Mongols would be fools to make a deal with you now, wouldn't they? They know you are a "backstabber"

-Jam

Sisawat · January 30, 2003, 18:03

Its all moot at this point anyway, the Mongols were just destroyed in an Ottoman-backed gurrilla war.