Tweet
Peace treaty?
I'm generally a peaceful player. I've even been known to offer peace immediately after someone killed off a unit of mine that may have wandered into his territory, and to leave settlers on plains or undefended cities alone when I come across them in the early going. I even play like this in non-alliance games. It's nice to have at least one border that may be more secure for millenia to come because of one simple magnaminous act of good will, and in a game with a lot of players, it does tend to pay off.
Last night I was in a situation that did not exactly fulfill my basic requirements for peaceful coexistence. I hosted as the Romans, and the other two players were German and Greek. It was a 60x60 map, so I figured everyone should be able to grow a bit before meeting. Having no starting techs should confirm this, I thought. But then around 3300 B.C., a Greek archer showed up on a river square close to Veii. This was the same river I hoped to expand along to the East, since my terrain to the North was not great near by, and I was otherwise blocked by the sea. I of course made peace, largely because it seemed illogical to fight it out with him while the Germans were free to grow in peace. The archer was still an annoyance, becuse I had to keep 2 exploring units home to block it off.
I soon realized, via clicking on unit support icons, that Athens was to the east, and Sparta to my north. The only possibility of expanding on good terrain was either in a thin line along the western coast, or down an ithsmuth to the east, which I couldn't be sure was promising. I seemed to have one course of action. I was largely egged on by the fact that from the top 5 city screen it was appearant that Athens was still not defended (and hadn't grown any). So a search began that I entirely intended to end with a violation of a very recent peace treaty. I found Sparta first, with my chariot. It was undefended. I did what came natural. He was a bit confused, thinking that I may have simply been irritated by his refusal to chat. I told him why I fealt I had no choice but to violate the treaty, and then set off in search of Athens with my horse. (My chariot got killed off the next turn by that same pesky archer, which was right next to Sparta)
I soon found Athens with my horse, still undefended. But because it was in trees I was unable to move in with my remaining movement point. The next turn it was defended.
In the squabbling that followed his archer died trying to knock a warrior off a rock, I lost my horse after killing the settler he had built from Athens, and he took a city of mine because I was stupid. But since I was still concentrating on expanding rather than warfare, and he didn't have any offensive techs, I still managed to expand rather nicely. (He actually tried a phalanx rush on a river city. he he.)
In the mean time I did send a settler down that ithsmus, (or however you spell it) and doing the icon click thing again, just in case Greece had a city down that way,I had the disconcerting experience of finding that the settler was closer to Frankfurt than to my own nearby city. I pushed on, hoping to make contact.
My settler was on a river square when I found Frankfurt,undefended, and still had 2/3 movement points left. The first thing I did was to offer to exchange tech, and got map making for burial (which told me that Monarchy was not a big priority for him).
I'm not exactly sure why I did what I did next. It did go against my usual line of play. Perhaps I thought about how my growth had been festered somewhat by the Greeks, while Germany was free to expand ininhibited. Or maybe it was the bananas. But immediately after our trade I did what you've all figured out that I did by now, and the 2/3 movement points left proved to be enough this time. Of course I didn't have a peace treaty with this guy, but he was still rather pissed that I had done this just after trading techs with him.
Those of you I play with most often probably know that I like peace treaties, and do generally honor them a lot longer than 5 turns. Some of you have even made contact with me first via a settler, meeting my attacking unit, and had me offer peace, which lasted. But sometimes long term peace just isn't in the cards.
So what do y'all think? Was I an unmitigated b*****d who can never be trusted with a peace treaty again for any length of time, or was I just doing what I needed to do if I had any hope of victory?
And what about the Germans? did he have great reason to be pissed even though we hadn't had a peace treaty?
I already know how Marksuf would weigh in. He took a city of mine once not three turns after I had spared one of his, offering him peace instead. And he was already dominant at the time.
By the way, the game was not concluded. The connection went out, and by the time I made contact with them again they were interrested in another game, and we joined that game instead.
Last night I was in a situation that did not exactly fulfill my basic requirements for peaceful coexistence. I hosted as the Romans, and the other two players were German and Greek. It was a 60x60 map, so I figured everyone should be able to grow a bit before meeting. Having no starting techs should confirm this, I thought. But then around 3300 B.C., a Greek archer showed up on a river square close to Veii. This was the same river I hoped to expand along to the East, since my terrain to the North was not great near by, and I was otherwise blocked by the sea. I of course made peace, largely because it seemed illogical to fight it out with him while the Germans were free to grow in peace. The archer was still an annoyance, becuse I had to keep 2 exploring units home to block it off.
I soon realized, via clicking on unit support icons, that Athens was to the east, and Sparta to my north. The only possibility of expanding on good terrain was either in a thin line along the western coast, or down an ithsmuth to the east, which I couldn't be sure was promising. I seemed to have one course of action. I was largely egged on by the fact that from the top 5 city screen it was appearant that Athens was still not defended (and hadn't grown any). So a search began that I entirely intended to end with a violation of a very recent peace treaty. I found Sparta first, with my chariot. It was undefended. I did what came natural. He was a bit confused, thinking that I may have simply been irritated by his refusal to chat. I told him why I fealt I had no choice but to violate the treaty, and then set off in search of Athens with my horse. (My chariot got killed off the next turn by that same pesky archer, which was right next to Sparta)
I soon found Athens with my horse, still undefended. But because it was in trees I was unable to move in with my remaining movement point. The next turn it was defended.
In the squabbling that followed his archer died trying to knock a warrior off a rock, I lost my horse after killing the settler he had built from Athens, and he took a city of mine because I was stupid. But since I was still concentrating on expanding rather than warfare, and he didn't have any offensive techs, I still managed to expand rather nicely. (He actually tried a phalanx rush on a river city. he he.)
In the mean time I did send a settler down that ithsmus, (or however you spell it) and doing the icon click thing again, just in case Greece had a city down that way,I had the disconcerting experience of finding that the settler was closer to Frankfurt than to my own nearby city. I pushed on, hoping to make contact.
My settler was on a river square when I found Frankfurt,undefended, and still had 2/3 movement points left. The first thing I did was to offer to exchange tech, and got map making for burial (which told me that Monarchy was not a big priority for him).
I'm not exactly sure why I did what I did next. It did go against my usual line of play. Perhaps I thought about how my growth had been festered somewhat by the Greeks, while Germany was free to expand ininhibited. Or maybe it was the bananas. But immediately after our trade I did what you've all figured out that I did by now, and the 2/3 movement points left proved to be enough this time. Of course I didn't have a peace treaty with this guy, but he was still rather pissed that I had done this just after trading techs with him.
Those of you I play with most often probably know that I like peace treaties, and do generally honor them a lot longer than 5 turns. Some of you have even made contact with me first via a settler, meeting my attacking unit, and had me offer peace, which lasted. But sometimes long term peace just isn't in the cards.
So what do y'all think? Was I an unmitigated b*****d who can never be trusted with a peace treaty again for any length of time, or was I just doing what I needed to do if I had any hope of victory?
And what about the Germans? did he have great reason to be pissed even though we hadn't had a peace treaty?
I already know how Marksuf would weigh in. He took a city of mine once not three turns after I had spared one of his, offering him peace instead. And he was already dominant at the time.
By the way, the game was not concluded. The connection went out, and by the time I made contact with them again they were interrested in another game, and we joined that game instead.
Comment