May 25, 2004, 16:06
|
#1
|
|
Settler
Local Time: 20:37
Local Date: July 29, 2010
Join Date: May 2004
Location: baltimore, md, usa
Posts: 12
|
occupied territories.
occasionally, i find myself wanting to fight a war for reasons other than territorial gain. perhaps i want trade concessions, or maybe just two or three cities along my border. but in order to do this, i have to destroy as much of a rival civilzation as possible. indeed, until a peace treaty ends a war, all captured territories should be considered 'occupied lands.' while resistance may end there, you have not established full political control over the territory. you may not even WANT full political control over the territory. when you sign the peace treaty, withdrawal from all occupied territories can be one of the negotiating points. in addition, with an improved united nations, the un could issue a resolution insisting that you return occupied lands to their rightful owners. and if you retain it, those captured territories would never fully lose their identity as 'english' or 'german' or whoever they were taken from. neglect them sufficiently and they'll rebel. has the parent civ already been destroyed? doesn't matter: they could actually start up again!
__________________
please lay off. i'm new.
|
|
|
|
|
May 26, 2004, 02:59
|
#2
|
|
Prince
Local Time: 15:37
Local Date: July 29, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 808
|
I'll vote for that. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 26, 2004, 03:09
|
#3
|
|
Chieftain
Local Time: 20:37
Local Date: July 29, 2010
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 33
|
Indeed, the Civ3 war setting of all or nothing is frustrating. We should be able to wage wars for trade (may be on demand of our "private sector", as someone said in the trade thread) or technological cooperation, etc, and not only for land and cities.
That would give you a nuisance power, which is completely neglected in the game as it is. If other Civs want you to remain peaceful, then they'd better spoil you with trade and gifts, etc... or crush you if they can.
But definitely for this and other features, the AI would need a complete reconception to stop being as dumb as it is.
__________________
Where everybody thinks alike, nobody thinks very much.
Diplomacy is the art of letting others have your way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 26, 2004, 10:45
|
#4
|
|
Settler
Local Time: 20:37
Local Date: July 29, 2010
Join Date: May 2004
Location: baltimore, md, usa
Posts: 12
|
right. maybe different 'types' of wars? border conflict vs. total war, skirmish vs. engagement. attacking an enemy unit should mean a declaration of war: it should remain up to the nation that was attacked to declare war or, if it so chooses, to fight an 'undeclared' war. this way you could aid your allies militarily in a war without declaring war on their enemy (pershing's rifles in wwi, for example).
__________________
please lay off. i'm new.
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 26, 2004, 11:50
|
#5
|
|
King
Local Time: 14:37
Local Date: July 29, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,668
|
Yes, PLEASE to the first post.
Occupied territory should stay occupied until a formal peace treaty is signed. THere should be cease fires and peace treaties, so we can see situations where countries are not at war, but the world community still recognizes land (that may be fully integrated into its new home otherwise) as occupied.
Occupying someone else's "rightful" land would cause tensions with that country, and with any third countries who like them more than they like you.
If revolt models are implemented (and there are some good ideas out there) then occupied land could be treated as a whole different entity in those, so you might see a swatch of occupied territory rebel against both its oppresors and its former leader!
All in all, it's a great idea.
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 16:37.
|
|
