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
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
Comment