The ambassador's reports on the GoW

[zeit]

Reprt no.1, preliminary examination of future geogrpaphical inforation exchange:

I recently brought to UnOrthOdOx's (their ambassador) attention that we were discussinng the prospect of trading geographical info, and that i would like to hear what is his team stance on the matter. I tried to speak in as neutral tone as possible, without suggesting him that we 'desire' such exchange, only discussing it, in the hope it will bring future benefits, etc...

His reply, as was recieved a short while ago was polite, and clearly stated that this issue had been discussed by the team's 'kings' and decided to be more than of a risk than potential gain, so they don't see it as viable option, for now.
He also said that the GoW was approached to by other teams on the matter, but has not stated whether this was a clear offer or more of probing like i did.

[notyoueither]

Very good, zeit.

I wonder if it could have been RP approaching them? After all, it looks as if the GoW capitol could be squid rich.

[Meshelic]

Good work Zeit.

I think all the teams are communicating between themselves and nosing around, trying to figure out what is kosher and what isn't.

At this point I'm sure most of the teams have reached the same decision as us, to just wait until real contact is made in-game before committing to any kind of trade.

It's a wise choice.

[alva]

all teams except the Demo-guys, they seem to be keeping very much to themselves.
No team has any contact with them.

[zeit]

Oh, and one more thing:, UnO also told me that they don't feel themselves constrained by the diplomacy dialouge screen in the game, and that negotiation or deals that don't have a clear definition in the games (such as trading artillery) are a more than welcomed.

[Meshelic]

Hmm...interesting.

[alva]

(such as trading artillery)

??? Have I mist somrthing???

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by alva848


??? Have I mist somrthing???

Remember that artillery can be captured intact, so an artillery deal could be based on having the customer leave a stack of artillery unprotected and having GoW come in and claim it. The question, though, is whether that would be regarded by the game mechanics as an act of war, in which case all ongoing per-turn deals between the two nations would presumably abort. I wonder whether GoW has thought to test that out before proposing artillery as a possible form of payment.

Nathan

[DeepO]

Nathan, in Civ3, I thought gpt deals were merely suspended, and resumed once peace was signed again. It's just you don't see it often because you always try to end gpt deals before declaring war. There might be something else going on, like it depending on who delcares war to whom...

As to artillery: I've seen it a few times already that I was not able to capture artillery, but destroyed it instead. I'm not sure where it depends on (being inside my own territory could be a cause), but they'll have to be careful here. But, I do like the idea.

DeepO

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by DeepO
Nathan, in Civ3, I thought gpt deals were merely suspended, and resumed once peace was signed again. It's just you don't see it often because you always try to end gpt deals before declaring war. There might be something else going on, like it depending on who delcares war to whom...

You may always try to end all per-turn deals before declaring war, but I routinely have tech-for-luxury deals in place (my tech for their luxuries plus whatever else I can squeeze out of them) when I attack. As long as I don't owe the AI per-turn for something it provided up front, such attacks don't demolish my reputation, although I can't confirm whether or not a little damage might be done. And then there are the times AIs have attacked me while deals were going on. I never once recall a situation where it looked like a disrupted deal resumed automatically after the war was over (although granted, sometimes that's because there's no one left to resume the other side of the deal ).

As to artillery: I've seen it a few times already that I was not able to capture artillery, but destroyed it instead. I'm not sure where it depends on (being inside my own territory could be a cause), but they'll have to be careful here. But, I do like the idea.

If you don't have the tech to build it, it's destroyed instead of being captured. That's the only condition under which it's destroyed that I've heard of so far.

Nathan

[DeepO]

well, try it sometimes, when a civ owes you money, and he declares war. In your F1 screen, you'll see under '50 gpt from other civs' something like '12 gpt suspended'. As said, there is most likely something else going on, but at least when he owes you money for a techtrade or something, he should pay you after peace...

Artillery: it happened a fewe times, but not enough to be really sure what was going on in my games. But, I seem to recall one time when I captured a cannon from an AI, and he captured it right back in the following turn. But it destroyed immediately (and not capture - disband). I was wondering what was going on, and saw that kind of thing at least once more in my games (granted, this is not really regularly, but how any times do you lose artillery to an AI?)

DeepO

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by DeepO
well, try it sometimes, when a civ owes you money, and he declares war. In your F1 screen, you'll see under '50 gpt from other civs' something like '12 gpt suspended'. As said, there is most likely something else going on, but at least when he owes you money for a techtrade or something, he should pay you after peace...

What "should" happen may depend on who wins, and on what's left after the war. If the AI wins, it might quite reasonably (from a "might makes right" perspective, anyhow) regard cancellation of the debt as a reasonable part of the peace treaty. Conversely, if you pretty thoroughly demolish it, a couple hundred gold per turn (not impossible after the sale of a couple industrial techs close together) may be many times its remaining gross income. (Then, too, in the latter case, the debt may be regarded as having been paid in blood.)

Artillery: it happened a fewe times, but not enough to be really sure what was going on in my games. But, I seem to recall one time when I captured a cannon from an AI, and he captured it right back in the following turn. But it destroyed immediately (and not capture - disband). I was wondering what was going on, and saw that kind of thing at least once more in my games (granted, this is not really regularly, but how any times do you lose artillery to an AI?)

Considering that I almost never have artillery in the first place except for what I capture from an AI? I won't swear that I've never had an AI capture artillery from me, but I can't remember any occasions offhand.

Nathan

[DeepO]

I agree, it could be part of who initiates peace talks. As said, I only observed the 'suspended' thing in F1, I never paid attention to the remaining payments. Another option could be that if you normally would receive money for 3 remaining turns, but are in war for more then 3 turns (say 5), it is discarded, while if you would be at war for less (say 1 turn), the remaining 2 turns get also paid.
I really don't know...

Re: artillery: I too most of the times gain artillery from captures, but this also means that you mostly gain them from capturing cities with artillery in them. It is rare to see AI artillery in the open... this could further obscure the exact game mechanics.

DeepO

[Arrian]

I thought that deals were just nullified by war. I've never noticed this "suspended" thing in the F1 screen.

Interesting.

-Arrian

[nbarclay]

A further thought on how trade deals "ought" to be handled in time of war - and this may be applicable in Gathering Storm's negotiations at some point. If the nation owed the debt attacks, it seems reasonable for the civ owing the debt to regard the debt as canceled (i.e. "If you attack me, I have every right to use the gold I would otherwise owe you to pay for my defense"). But if the nation owing the gold or trade goods declares war, resumption of the debt should be considered the "break-even" point for peace treaties, and forgiveness of the debt should be treated as the civ owed the debt making a concession to the civ owing the debt. (Note that if the civ owed the debt wins the war decisively, this concept could give it additional leverage to demand cities in peace negotiations if cities are the only thing the attacker can afford to pay its debt with. "Okay, we agree that you can't afford the 2000 gold you refused to pay after attacking us, so we'll accept an additional territorial concession as payment.")

Nathan