Can trade be considered as an act of war???

[winzity]

Yesterday I was in a Civ 2 game there one player wanted to do agreements like those that are normal for techstealing.. He wanted to sign an agreement there i got 3 traderoutes for a tech amd after that he could not accept any more caravans...
The first point is that the game DON'T have any options for stopping caravans, even in war you must accept them. The only thing you can do is to kill them. But in really life there is defference between tradewars and wars there humans get killed...

For me a peaceful caravan trading goods the people in your cities demands can't be compared with hostile actions like techstealings. What is your opinion?

I had Map making and he don't had it so he could not attack the caravans if they was delivered from sea... His opinion would only be a diplomacy complain then... Don't matter he thought he had right, to claim it. What is the ethics, if there are any... Is trade an act of war? And he should declare war? I don't think so, trade is peaceful actions, and good for both! He could trade back.. Would a war give more advantage, especially in a situation there he not had a target he could attack! Now you say: "He only put up ICY diplomatic relations", yes he did, but what should the advantage of a such ICY attitude be? If somebody have an answer please tell me!

Confused caravans arrived in Hamburg

[finbar]

Your opponent is entitled to put in place any conditions he likes. Prior to the game. It's up to you whether you accept them or not.

Trade is often used by players as a political tool within the game. Some players will demand a share of any trade delivered to their cities; some will refuse to receive any trade because it benefits the sender of the trade. It's only another example of the way various elements of the game have been "customised" by players.

[rah]

If I can deliver them, I really don't care what the other person thinks, (unless we had an agreement, and agreements can be broken). I have no problem killing inbound caravans. If I see a boat coming up, if I'm fast enough, I'll remove workers from trade squares.

[finbar]

That's the standard non-aggressive defence against unwanted incoming trade. But the point remains, any tactic is a legitimate tactic providing it doesn't contravene established house rules.

[atawa]

I was the player that wanted a tech for those 3 caravans.
Since at this stage in the game and with my trade 3 caravans will mean an extra tech and a ****load of money for Winzity, I thought it only fair I would get something in return.

You approached me even before we met with the question if we could trade so 'we can stop the evil germans' your allies btw

All we Mongols want is just to be at peace and trade with our neighbours but not on a one-way street

[War4ever]

Originally posted by atawa


All we Mongols want is just to be at peace and trade with our neighbours but not on a one-way street

Mongols don't trade, we war.....

[atawa]

SHHHH!!!!!!!

They dont have to know

[War4ever]

rotflmao......ok we dont' want the secret to be let out

[Messer Niccolò]

Business is war (and business)

Winzity, I think that atawa did the right thing. Well, at least he tried to offer you something in exchange for something.
Basically you get more than him from your caravans so he told something like: "ok you can trade in my country... but you have to pay taxes as well..."

I image Mongol leader "you give tech, I let pass three camels. Accept this deal or pay the consequences"

... consequences? Schmonsequence!

It's up to you let's "tax" him for something else!


I love this game!

[DrFell]

Yeah trade against one side's will is an act of war - not that that stops me doing it all the time though.

[War4ever]

if you can get in...... then trade away......but you can't always charm your way through the front door

[deity]

Originally posted by rah
If I can deliver them, I really don't care what the other person thinks, (unless we had an agreement, and agreements can be broken). I have no problem killing inbound caravans. If I see a boat coming up, if I'm fast enough, I'll remove workers from trade squares.

I was told that this was now regarded a cheat and was even included in Rah Rules??

Please explain!

[Makeo]

just because something is in the most holy of holies, rah rules, doesn't mean its applicable to every game of civ on the planet and just because something is not allowed in rah rules doesn't make it a cheat.

[deity]

Originally posted by Makeo
just because something is in the most holy of holies, rah rules, doesn't mean its applicable to every game of civ on the planet and just because something is not allowed in rah rules doesn't make it a cheat.

Well of course!

But very few games, if any, specify whether this is OK, so I assume it's NOT OK unless agreed?

The default situation must be that Rah rules applies, I'd say.

[markusf]

Originally posted by Makeo
just because something is in the most holy of holies, rah rules, doesn't mean its applicable to every game of civ on the planet and just because something is not allowed in rah rules doesn't make it a cheat.

Bad memories from some duels?