Ocean ROP

DCMike · May 27, 2003, 16:19

I don't know if this has been discussed before but as I was trying to explore the world in my current game, I thought it might be useful to have two types of right of passage agreements- one for land and one for sea. Maybe the next expansion could have this. Any thoughts?

statusperfect · May 27, 2003, 16:26

great idea..

easy to implement....

if the new editor is REALLY powerful in conquests we might even do it ourselves

cheers

GodKing · May 27, 2003, 16:43

Good idea.

Kloreep · May 27, 2003, 16:54

Good idea.

Although I've found the AI usually acts as if it has one with you anyway,

at least before Navigation/Magnetism.

Nym · May 28, 2003, 07:28

I thought sea and land you control were already considered the same way for ROP: when there is no ROP you are not authorized to go through the sea controlled by the AI.
Or do you mean you want to control land and sea ROP separately? If so, yes, it is a good idea.

TheStinger · May 28, 2003, 10:08

You could even have land,sea and air

Nym · May 28, 2003, 12:39

Quote:

Originally posted by TheStinger
You could even have land,sea and air

Air ROP. Good idea too

CrONoS · May 28, 2003, 13:05

Air ROP... Why??????

Bomber, Fighter dont really fly over things... you just pick a zone to bombard and your bomber drop the bombs where you click...
Your bomber ic Civ3 dont fly like in Civ2... it got to be in a city or a AirPort... And when you "rebase" in a new city, your aircraft dont care about any distance or what is between the "source city" and the "destination city"...

But if the Air ROP can make you give the right to make AirPort in another Civilization, this can be a good thing...

I can't wait to see if Conquest got new option in the editor?
Anyone know if there a chat soon fixed with firaxis?

thanks and see ya

Nym · May 28, 2003, 13:24

For helicopters maybe

Roggan · May 28, 2003, 19:26

rop isnt only mad in see

itis mad in land two

hance rops

Spiffor · May 28, 2003, 20:11

Sea ROPs would be of very limited use, namely pre-navigation sea exploration. While it would be enjoyable in the early game, it would become completely useless in the later game (where boats can fare outside of the Civ's territory).

Personally, to avoid the "trireme in foreign borders" syndrome, I've edited my game for Triremes to have four moves, and other ships to have many more.

WarpStorm · May 28, 2003, 22:19

I just ignore the warnings the AI gives me for ship encroachments as it very rarely causes war (and they rarely encroach from sea).

mrmitchell · May 29, 2003, 14:01

Quote:

rop isnt only mad in see

itis mad in land two

hance rops

Ottok got a DL!

PLATO · May 29, 2003, 22:45

I don't see any added utility to having a land RoP and a sea RoP. The current situation mirrors the real world pretty well IMHO. Ancient civs may claim sea territory but have little ability to enforce it. The AI mirrors this when it tells you to leave, you ignore it, and nothing happens. As a Civ matures, I can see things like trading a RoP at navigational checkpoints for some type of consideration, but beyond that I believe that a general RoP should suffice.

Nym · May 30, 2003, 03:44

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO1003
I can see things like trading a RoP at navigational checkpoints for some type of consideration

I think it is the main idea behind the sea ROP concept.

Daz · May 30, 2003, 05:01

Sea ROP, excelent idea. Air ROP also, but in CIV4 (if there is any...). I always wished there was an air transport unit which could move your tanks or at least artilery around.

nbarclay · May 30, 2003, 05:17

On land, ROP agreements serve two purposes. (1) They allow civs to benefit from each other's roads and railroads. (2) They mean a civ won't demand that you leave or declare war if you end a turn in their borders.

Neither of these is an issue on the water. Ships move just as quickly within someone else's borders without a ROP as they do with one, and while civs will ask you to leave if your ships end up in their territory, the "remove your forces or declare war" option does not exist with regard to ships. As best I can figure it, AIs are perfectly willing to ignore territorial sovereignty where water tiles are concerned, and they don't make a big fuss if humans behave similarly.

Nathan

TheArsenal · May 30, 2003, 11:10

Quote:

Originally posted by nbarclay
"... Ships move just as quickly within someone else's borders without a ROP as they do with one, and while civs will ask you to leave if your ships end up in their territory, the "remove your forces or declare war" option does not exist with regard to ships. As best I can figure it, AIs are perfectly willing to ignore territorial sovereignty where water tiles are concerned, and they don't make a big fuss if humans behave similarly."
Nathan

I find this to be true. The AI will ask you to leave, but if you say "sure" and continue moving through their waters, you may not hear from them again, or not for quite some time. And it doesn't really seem to harm attitude relations. IIRC, the AI does seem a bit touchier when you have multiple ships or ships loaded with units.

PLATO · May 30, 2003, 17:18

Quote:

Originally posted by nbarclay
On land, ROP agreements serve two purposes. (1) They allow civs to benefit from each other's roads and railroads. (2) They mean a civ won't demand that you leave or declare war if you end a turn in their borders.

Neither of these is an issue on the water. Ships move just as quickly within someone else's borders without a ROP as they do with one, and while civs will ask you to leave if your ships end up in their territory, the "remove your forces or declare war" option does not exist with regard to ships. As best I can figure it, AIs are perfectly willing to ignore territorial sovereignty where water tiles are concerned, and they don't make a big fuss if humans behave similarly.

Nathan

I find this true also. I don't believe that a seperate general RoP for sea tiles would add much. Perhaps we should call it a Right of transit recognized at navigational chockpoints only and give it a 5 turm limit. This would preserve territorial security in some sensitive coastal areas while accomidating a culture that you do not want to extend a general RoP to.