Bribing Units is ridiculous

[Alexander's Horse]

I mean, COME ON, does this rule make any sense at all? How often does this happen? Was Stalingrad or Waterloo decided by bribery and corruption?

[Jim W]

There is a place for bribery. It was extensively used in Ancient times, and even up into the pre-Napoleonic period. In the later periods, it was a little more classy, not "here's 38 gold, come over to my side." More likely the leader would be approached and told that he could get a high-class title, with the lands and so on that went with it, if he brought his men over to your side.

It's hard to write a program making all the various permutations happen, so the stacking prohibition (you can't bribe a unit if there're a whole lot of units around watching it) and the Democratic prohibition (at a certain stage, troops are more loyal to the nation than to the leader).

That last one is a pest, of course, because not all nations reach a that stage at the same time. Fascist Italians surrendered very quickly. Fascist Germans fought stubbornly, at great odds.

As for modern bribery, all of France was not conquered by the Germans; a large southern section was permitted to rule itself (Vichy France) in return for surrender. A bit more than 684 gold, but it worked. And France today is still trying to get over that one.

Marshal Petain, who could quite easily have been a Nazi, ran Vichy France for the Germans, and ought to have been hung as a traitor after the war. It was realized, however, that if Petain was executed, they'd have to execute a lot more, plus put about a quarter of France in prison to be watched over by the other three quarters.

That, of course, would mean a civil war, so they put Petain in prison as a collaborator, which meant they could then ignore lesser collaborators, and try to keep the country together.

Which was another sort of bribe, really.

Anyhow, I get sort of annoyed if someone brib nes my Alpine troops, but then, I try to stick everybody in stacks.

And on occasion, I bribe their Marines.

I guess you gotta take the bad with the good.

Jim W

[Smash]

it is good and bad.But you really only get 1 shot to attack and you'd better make it work.Otherwise,defenders are rushed and attackers are turned into defenders.At least there are ways to stop it(stacking,Democracy) unlike tech stealing,sabotage and the incidious city bribe to which there is no realistic defense.

[The Mad Monk]

I agree that cities are bribed much too cheaply, often more cheaply than what a single unit inside the city would cost. My solution would be to make the city cost a basic amount (based on the current calculations), plus the bribe amount for each and every unit inside that city.

[Venger]

For modern units, it's somewhat ridiculous. I have it turned off for all modern units except for Mercenaries.

Older times it makes more sense - most older armies were mercenary in nature, or made up of peasant classes.

City bribery is another thing altogether. It should never be allowed, and I have considered removing the diplomat and spy units from the game.

Venger

[Smash]

If a Fundementalist regime's citizens are supposed to be fanatically devoted,devoid of material want etc,then what are you bribing them with?Kraft Dinner maybe?

[finbar]

Back copies of "Hustler"?

------------------
finbar
Mono Rules!
#33984591

[Ming]

I don't have a problem with bribing units. I wish it was more expensive... but it's OK.
I like the rule that you can't bribe stacked units. One unit is keeping the other honest

But, I have a problem with bribing whole cities. It's just far too cheap, sometimes as cheap as bribing a single unit. It makes diplos way too powerful early in the game.

[Hodad]

Bribing units is OK.
Bribing CITIES is ridiculous!

[Tom DeMille]

I'm with AH on this one. It would have been rediculous if the US could have just offered the Japanese fleet a few million to come over to their side just before Pearl Harbor.

[shamrock]

Of course, if you're willing to modify the rules.txt file, there are ways to mitigate this game imbalance. I often do one or more of the following to diplos/spies:

1) Increase cost
2) Remove "Two Space Visibility" flag (from spy)
3) Remove "Ignore ZOC" flag
4) Reduce movement

In general, these changes can make it much more difficult to sneak up on enemy units or slip past enemy defenses.
[This message has been edited by shamrock (edited May 06, 2000).]

[Venger]

quote: Originally posted by finbar on 05-06-2000 12:14 AM Back copies of "Hustler"?

Pure genius.

Venger

[Venger]

quote: Originally posted by shamrock on 05-06-2000 11:13 AM Of course, if you're willing to modify the rules.txt file, there are ways to mitigate this game imbalance. I often do one or more of the following to diplos/spies: 1) Increase cost 2) Remove "Two Space Visibility" flag (from spy) 3) Remove "Ignore ZOC" flag 4) Reduce movement In general, these changes can make it much more difficult to sneak up on enemy units or slip past enemy defenses. [This message has been edited by shamrock (edited May 06, 2000).]

I've done variants on this in the past. My current rules.txt simply has the reduction in movement, which frankly is normally enough to see the SOBs incoming. I'm teetering on the ZOC issue. I mean, if all they were going to do is investigate the city, I'd leave it. Or even poison it. Or sabotage it. But bribe it? Hell no. So I'm still on the fence...

Not sure what good the two space visibility does...

Venger

[shamrock]

Hey Venger, I'm running into you everywhere!

Removing the 2-spc vis makes a huge difference! Suddenly your spy cannot see that horseman coming, or you spy may move within the city radius of an enemy city and not even know it.

[Chuckles39]

i myself hate city bribing and dips in general, i changed the cost and was reamed about it during a tribe game. i forgot i changed it and i was the host...