Allied liberations and one last chance

[joseph1944]

In a game I would used the treaty only to benefit my nation and would if necessary turn on a allied or friend in split second. It is a game only, not life.

[Inverse Icarus]

::a sweeping realization hits Uber KruX::

civ is only a game?

::he walks outside and melts::

[Theben]

I think Uberkrux's idea of an "ally" is what everyone else would call a "vassal-state".

[Rollo_CH]

the Romans have rich oil fields, and you have been giving them 50 gold a turn for a few drums of oil. those rich oil-producting cities were taken over by the Greeks. You then go in and take the cities from the Greeks. So now you have 5 or so, already developed size 6 cities, making YOU oil for FREE and your large military presence in the area.

Of course this mean you will meet with your ally (the Romans) after the conquest and discuss the aftermath. This is (i hope), what Firaxis means with their "expanded" diplomacy. Should the Romans demand all their cities back and still ask for 50 gold a turn: run them down!

[MORON]

What about allies that are more powerful than you and lose cities due to stupidility or the one turn rail raid. Would you risk it and not give back the city UberKruX?

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by UberKruX

read all my posts dimwads

i stated that i only help allies that help me in some way. (tech biatch, money, etc)

I have read it twice, but I misunderstand you: may be because of your joke about "she under your desk"
I understand that in your opinion they aren't good enough points to make an alliance. In fact, you follow that path with your

after the million gold I just paid them for the oil I used to make MY tanks that I sent to take over the Greeks cities? I have to give them back? and resume paying THE WEAKLING WHO CANT HOLD HIS OWN CITIES?

sounds like a plan to me.

Yes it is: call it Desert Storm

and IMO, no one would sign an alliance where the terms are "you give me oil and i give you alliance". Sounds more like bullying than a friendship.

Ehrrr, it is the usual foreign office duty of superpower, isn'it?

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by MORON
What about allies that are more powerful than you and lose cities due to stupidility or the one turn rail raid. Would you risk it and not give back the city UberKruX?

more powerful than me?

hasn't happened yet.

and yes, as i said before "all the land is mine, the other civs are my tenants". i guess those are vassal states.

oh and incase you wanted a first hand view of the "expanded diplomacy" i know of a screenshot.

http://www.strategyplanet.com/civili...ges/shot35.jpg

perhaps you havent seen that one yet.

[Grumbold]

I hope culture will be a powerful enough factor to make you WANT to give back cities to your allies because it is more convenient to have them trading you goods than having to ruthlessly repress the city culture in order to harvest the resources yourself. I would fully expect any alliance to decay toward hostility if my "Ally" was ruthlessly crushing my culture somewhere on the map, or I theirs.

If culture turns out to be a weak force that is quickly mollified and absorbed in a few turns then the whole concept will be a gimmicky failure. If it keeps forcing you back to the diplomacy table as the cheapest means of achieving what you want then it will be a success.

[Inverse Icarus]

grum: i agree.

culture should not be easily subdued.

but it should be able to be subdued by the presence of a large military.

in any case, i just dont want military rule completely phased out.

there have been various instances throughout history.

[Minimus]

Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't it be possible for one to reach a very favorable agreement to give back a liberated city ? I had no opportunity (if anybody outside of the dev team had) to play Civ3, but I believe that one could get better deal terms than prewar ones if one has something significant to barter for. For instance, you had a 50 gold per turn for oil deal, it could become a 1 gold per turn for petroleum if a city is given back.
Just my .02$

[Grumbold]

Uber: I'm entirely happy with allowing cities to be ruled by any nation that is prepared to station 6+ divisions in the suburbs...provided giving the city back and asking nicely would get you that trade good for the equivalent cost of supporting 2 divisions What I won't be happy about is if stationing 6 divisions there will see the "rebel" culture assimilate to your culture at one head a turn so that in ten turns or less it is safe to march off and leave a fully pacified city behind you - particularly if your ally stays allied and happy while this goes on.

[Kc7mxo]

I think that having to finnacially support the military is really going to hit us warmongers hard. And it is going to cause the kind of alliance you're talking about, where rather than post 6 divisions to guard against rebelling citizens you give the city back and get the oil you want for free.

[Inverse Icarus]

it said in a screenshot that agreements (like i give you 50 gold a turn for oil) last until war.

perhaps i missed a "cancel" or "refit" option somewhere.

but imagine you still had to pay them the 50 gold.

stupid romans.

[Biddles]

In the Romans being attacked by the greeks scenario, personally I would liberate the cities from the greeks (maybe taking one or two close by greek cities) and ask the greeks for peace. The romans would come up and ask me for their cities back and I would send my tanks into the streets of Rome. I am a tech/builder type when I play, but in that situation (i.e I have my tanks in perfect striking distance of the weak Romans, in a war thats probably going to last five or 6 turns max) then to hell with the romans, i'll take their (supposedly) high culture cities. On the other hand if they were as powerful (or more??) than me and they somehow managed to lose a ciy, yes I would give it back.