Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bug in Diplomacy?

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Bug in Diplomacy?

    First off I'm playing Warlords and I'm going for a diplo victory. Early on Mao Zedong and I had trade this was oh maybe 400-500 turns ago, I ceased trade with him after finding that he seemed to be a 'world-destabilizer'. A couple of hundred turns later I and most the rest of the world declared war and pushed him back until Ghandi forced him to capitualate.
    Now that I have given you an idea of how much time has elapsed this is were my bug comes in. Every time I go to almost any other civilization I have a "-1 YOU HAVE TRADED WITH OUR WORST ENEMIES" tag and at the start of the diplomacy screen I get "We suggest you stop trading with our bitter enemy, Mao Zedong." Even though I haven't traded with him in over 500 turns or so! Whats going on? Bug? If its not a bug, can I edit this value for myself?
    As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit
    atrocities.
    - Voltaire
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Do you have open borders with them?
    Clash of Civilization team member
    (a civ-like game whose goal is low micromanagement and good AI)
    web site http://clash.apolyton.net/frame/index.shtml and forum here on apolyton)

    Comment

    • #3
      no trade deals whatsoever, so no, no open borders
      As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit
      atrocities.
      - Voltaire

      Comment

      • #4
        It happens - frequently. I just finished a game where I agreed open borders with Mansa early on, then cancelled in favour of Alex (who was clearly going to own that continent). Through the rest of the game several civs leaderheads were whining at me not to trade with Mansa when I wasn't. Irritating.

        The whole "you traded with our worst enemy" thing is a pain. Like several other aspects of the relationship ratings it should lapse after a set number of turns since the trade was cancelled. The same for "Our mutual military struggle brings us closer together" running on long after that war is over.
        Never give an AI an even break.

        Comment

        • #5
          does anyone know if this is going to be addressed? If not is there any way to fix it myself
          As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit
          atrocities.
          - Voltaire

          Comment

          • #6
            Civs will tell you not to have dealings with others they dislike as a matter of form. I don't think it's a bug: they are just reminding you they hate the a**hole. Your having no current agreements with their non-favorite civ has no bearing on their statement.

            If your diplo rating has a minus for your trading with someone they dislike, are you sure they are referring to whom you think they are (one you've had no dealings with for a long time)? Even if it is, consider that they also keep diplo plusses that occured long ago.

            Comment

            • #7
              Originally posted by Jaybe
              Civs will tell you not to have dealings with others they dislike as a matter of form. I don't think it's a bug: they are just reminding you they hate the a**hole. Your having no current agreements with their non-favorite civ has no bearing on their statement.
              "We would encourage you to stop trading with our bitter enemy X" - doesn't sound quite right when you haven't traded with X for over a hundred turns.

              Originally posted by Jaybe
              consider that they also keep diplo plusses that occured long ago.
              They shouldn't keep plusses either. The only diplo rating factor I can think should not eventually expire is for razing one of their cities. Everything else should be based on current or recent events.

              There is an argument that being able to repair your relations with another civ - currently virtually impossible - could be exploited by some players. I am not looking to make the game easier but a diplomatic rating that places more emphasis on your current and recent actions rather than holding a grudge for something that has become ancient history would be more realistic, more reasonable and less of a PITA.
              Never give an AI an even break.

              Comment

              • #8
                "We would encourage you to stop trading with our bitter enemy X" - doesn't sound quite right when you haven't traded with X for over a hundred turns.
                Sure, there should be 2 forks: the other saying something like "We thank you for not trading with our bitter enemy X."
                I obviously don't have a problem with it, since I believe I know what it is meaning. It's not like they have a megabyte of phrases in there for different situations. Lord knows they have kept it simple, (often) with all leaders using the same statements!

                They shouldn't keep plusses either. The only diplo rating factor I can think should not eventually expire is for razing one of their cities. Everything else should be based on current or recent events.
                Design decision. Old factors remain, but recent/current factors modify it.
                How long would you have events last? Fifty years or fifty turns? 100? For what game speed?
                What if such old factors were all there was, and nothing newer had occurred?

                Comment

                • #9
                  It makes for more interesting game, with actuall, game-life-long friends, and enemies.
                  I've allways wanted to play "Russ Meyer's Civilization"

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Real nations and nationalities hold grudges and make claims that are hundreds, sometimes thousands of years old. Why not have Civ IV reflect that? I'm thinking of the Serbs/Croats/Bosnians/Kosovars over 500 years or Israel's return 1900 years after the diaspora.
                    No matter where you go, there you are. - Buckaroo Banzai
                    "I played it [Civilization] for three months and then realised I hadn't done any work. In the end, I had to delete all the saved files and smash the CD." Iain Banks, author

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Yes, but to form or break aliances retroactively based on what you did BEFORE civ A hated civ B? That's a bug.

                      Yes, the past should affect the present but the future shouldn't. And that's what this ammounts to, you have to know who's going to be trouble BEFORE they cause trouble or you get penalised.

                      And yes, there are deep-seated haterds that have lasdted thousands of years but those are the exception, not the rule. Not everyone on the face of the earth hates everyone else. (Not to open old wounds but ) The U.S.A. dropped the only atomic bomb ever on Japan, and they trade with us today, only 50-some years later.

                      I think the love/hate mechanic needs some work. That you can get in trouble for trading with someone before they were an enemy is an issue. That you can do nothing to overcome bad standings is an issue. That most everything is weighted towards being bad is an issue.

                      The whole love/hate mechanic needs help.

                      Tom P.

                      BTW Tattila, WHAT is your avatar? I can make out the face but the rest is at such an extreme angle I don't want to make assuptions about what it may be.

                      Comment

                      Previous template Next
                      Working...
                      X