War!!!!!!!!

[Shiber]

We don't know yet if that solves the alliance problem. I know for a fact that Firaxis is aware of several bugs that were not fixed yet and only intend to fix them in PTW.

[OPD]

Perhaps some one can help me. When I posted this poll in the bit where it says how long do you want this poll to last I put 7 days but the poll seems to not have a time limit.

Does anyone know what I'm doing wrong. I'll need to be able to post deadline polls properly for the 12th.

[UnOrthOdOx]

What makes you think it does not have a dealine?

7 days from posting will be Octber 10. The poll will not say anything on it about closing until then, when it says 'closed'.

[wervdon]

I play with 1.29f, and the bug is present there. I'm pretty sure its in every version of civ3. Best option IMO, is not to make any long-term agreements with or against america with them about to bite the dust anytime now.

[Togas]

Originally posted by wervdon
Oh and don't ally with the aztecs. There's a bug with eliminating civs and it counting as a broken deal. If we ally with the aztecs, and america is destroyed (thus prematurely ending the alliance) it'll probally count against our reputation. I know it will if gpt or resources are involved cause it happened like that in my last game, suddenly no one wanted to trade me for resources or gpt


EDIT: Discussion thread I started on the general forum a few weeks back when it happened to me where others confirmed it is a known bug is here: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=62104

I reviewed this thread. It's about a situation where a trade deal was broken because the trading partner died. There's no discussion or references to a reputation hit due to acomplishing the goal of an alliance.

Can anyone cite a thread that discusses a reputation hit because your alliance killed your enemy? I've personally never experienced this problem, and I think that, if the above statement is true, it's a horrible bug.

--Togas

[wervdon]

I reviewed this thread. It's about a situation where a trade deal was broken because the trading partner died. There's no discussion or references to a reputation hit due to acomplishing the goal of an alliance.

Good point, I just assumed it'd work the same, maybe we should test it (no I dont mean play ahead, I mean create a quick scenario) and see what happens.

I think that, if the above statement is true, it's a horrible bug.

I think its a horrible bug either way

[joncnunn]

In my current game, I elimated a civ while allied against them and didn't notice any rep hits. I was the one paying for it (via a tech) though.

[jdjdjd]

I think this poll could be deemed invalid.

I am against the war at this time. I think once we move closer to the time of war, that a repoll could be done. However, since its clear that War will win in this poll, there's no point.

[wervdon]

Ok, I made a scenario (in 1.29f of course) to test it with alliances, and it seems the bug with reputation taking a hit for not living up with deals for eliminated civs only happens if the deal is actually with the eliminated civ (not when its an alliance against the eliminated civ), so we'll be ok there.

However, I did notice that my relations in the scenario took a hit when I finished off the target in one turn. The scenario Im attaching is just rome, egypt, and greece on an island. Rome has several tanks and 1000 gold (to make deals with and setup embassies) and some tanks ready to move on the egyptian capital. I made contact with both civs, setup an embassy with greece, gifted them contact with the egyptians, declared war on egypt, and signed an alliance with greece against them for my spices + 10 gpt. Then took out egypt next turn.

I noticed no reputation hit. Alexander was still quiet willing to trade for my spices. I made sure by asking to buy nationalism from them. They would be insulted, I added gpt, and it stayed they would be insulted (not they would never accept like it does with bad rep)

My relations with alexander went from gracious to cautious when I took out cleo.

[wervdon]

Oh and just to clarify, Im sorry for giving out misleading information, I honestly thought the bug applied in this situation too. Apparently, it only hurts your rep if your deal is with the eliminated civ, not against.
------

Oh and Im still against the alliance based on the fact that we'd rather the aztecs make peace with america before taking chicago and other cities, so why would we encourage them to keep going.

[Shiber]

wervdon, way to go for taking the initiative.
AFAIK you take a foreign relations penalty when you take out a civ. This always happens in my games.
Regarding the alliance, the Aztecs have no reason to stop, other than war weariness maybe. Personally, I wouldn't count on the Aztecs stopping the war.

Togas: perhaps it would be better to wait as long as possible with the alliance with the Aztecs (until we are about to sign peace with Persia or we are about to attack America, whichever comes first). That way they will sell us the tech (hopefully Education, as you said) for a lower price since it might become known by more civs by then.

[joncnunn]

Wervdon & Shiber, when you are allied with a civ aginst another civ, they are usually gracious no matter what they were before for as long as the joint war continues. After the war or alliance is over (which ever occurs first) your relations will be back to normal immedately.

So, I sugest we sign the alliance with the Aztecs against the Americans for a discount for a tech right before we attack them and in addition right before we take the last American city, see if the Aztecs have another tech we can afford at the "Gracious" price before their price goes up after Abe is captured and the Aztecs relationship returns to historical levels.

[Shiber]

I didn't know that. Thanks for the info!

Regarding the alliance with the Aztecs: yes, I agree we should sign the alliance first and then see what they'd take for a tech. One thing though: the Americans will have fewer cities and units as time progresses, and therefore pose less of a threat or rather, less of a difficulty for the Aztec armies. I wonder if this could decrease the discount they will agree to give us for a tech, since they will then need our help in the war less badly.
I was always in favor of waiting for the turn we attack America before signing the alliance with the Aztecs but now I'm having second thoughts.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by joncnunn
Wervdon & Shiber, when you are allied with a civ aginst another civ, they are usually gracious no matter what they were before for as long as the joint war continues. After the war or alliance is over (which ever occurs first) your relations will be back to normal immedately.

That's not true. I've joined military alliances and the civs have stayed annoyed with me. Once my ally was furious. I do think it is a MAJOR positive towards your relations and you get a bigger positive bonus if you actively fight the target of the alliance. I've noticed if I sit on my butt their attitude goes downhill.

[zeit]

We can only buy Invention from the Aztecs (for now at least), and we can get it for free from the persian peace deal, but, the persian might have gunpowder, and we could get this instead. It's a risk we'll be taking if we buy invention instead of getting it from persia, although we might hit the jackpot if they have gunpowder. Anyhow, we know they have Music theory (started build Bach's cathedal in Arbela), so getting Education from the Aztecs (if they acquire it before we make peace with persia) will be a safer bet, but then again, it's only if they research it by then. What should we do if they don't, bet on the persia having gunpowder or just getting the gold and WM from the Aztecs, getting Education from greece for the incense plus gold?