Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Only 10 turns

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Only 10 turns

    So here's a technique I'm sure is familiar to all of you.

    I spot a an appealing city not too far from my own borders - a religion founding city is a popular choice, though maybe a resouce or other wonder could entice me. I move some troops to the border, call up their leader, and ask/demand for some cash/tech, whatever they have to spare.

    Whether they give it or not, I'm attacking. Generally takes 10 or so turns to get the city and also take/raze anything overwhelmng it with culture. That's enough time to make the leader willing to talk to me again, so I call again, they buy me off for a 10 turn peace treaty. It's perfect timing, because depending on how close the battle was, I might not be in a position to defend the new terrain yet.

    Those 10 turns are perfect for healing, re-building troops, and starting production in the targeted city. Then, when the treaty wears off, the process repeats. Sure, I'm giving up diplomacy points with multiple attacks, but if I cared about that I probably wouldn't attack in the first place.

    Clearly, this is a pretty lame deal for the target. 10 turns is a pretty short time in any setting, but especially so on Epic/Marathon. That treaty isn't giving them much bang for their buck. But then they're not giving much either. Cities offered are rare, and even then are only small ones nearly overwhelmed by culture anyway. And tech offered . . . actually, I can't remember the last time tech was offered in a surrender.

    Seems like two problems. One, peace treaties should be available components outside of combat. "Sure I'll help you with some gold, let's just throw in a treaty for good measure." Seems like it should almost be inherent. 10 turns is fine for that, maybe even 5.

    But in a post-war negotiation, as I said, 10 is nothing. So I'd really like to see longer options available. 50 turns, 100, permanent? If I'm looking at a tough spot, I'd hand over a city to Montezuma to buy 100 turns of peace. And there are definitely opponents who should be making that offer to me.

    Unfortunately, this doesn't sound like an easy mod since the AI would have to account for it. Perhaps an Xpack option?

  • #2
    You mean make the duration of peace-treaties flexible like the amount of gold given ?
    And a non-aggression treaty combined with that ?
    Sound nice to me. I'd really like to see that in an X-Pack, too.

    Comment


    • #3
      It could also just scale with game speed. So on Marathon it would be 30 turns.

      Comment


      • #4
        I think scaling with game speed would be good, but in general the ability to trade has been restricted in civ4 compared to civ3, the reason being that humans can take advantage of AI's too much in deals. In civ3 to overcome this human advantage in trading, the AI was given 5 starting settlers and other massive advantages to offset the human trading benefit. It is better to limit flexibility in trades so that the AI can play with less offsetting bonuses in other areas.

        Comment


        • #5
          Scaling to game speed would be nice partial quick fix, but my original point was that the current system is so easy to take advantage of. ("of which to take advantage?" Stupid English.)

          Anyway, if the game recognizes the the relative value of what it's giving away (and it seems to), and it knows how desirous of peace it is (again, seems to), then it doesn't sound difficult to set up criteria. The more you want peace, the more you give away for it - that's the current system. You loosen the scale a little, but add in a time period coinciding with the size of the buyoff, and you have a more flexible and less predictable game.

          (Conversely, if the AI is winning then the more it demands and the shorter the period it wants.)

          And if flexibility is problematic, what about making an inflexible automatic rule that with any trade between two parties, no attacking each other is allowed for the next, say, 5 turns? Not quite the "buying safety" idea I'm hoping for, but it would at least partially cut off the cheap tactic of "might as well demand before you attack."

          Comment


          • #6
            - ("of which to take advantage?" Stupid English.) -
            Colbert Report ? ;-)

            Comment

            Working...
            X