Bribing cities and units should be optional in Civ 3

[Urban Ranger]

Units defected to the other side all the time in battles throughout history. I don't see why bribing unit is such a bad idea. Units of a democratic nations can't be bribed. Units in a stack can't be bribed.

As for "bribing" of cities, it's not really paying money to buy off a city but a representation of a concentration of efforts to promote your civ within the enemy city plus a host of clandestine operations (e.g. agitations).

As unconventional warfare has long been a part of conflicts between civilisations there is no real reason to "outlaw" it.

[Alexander's Horse]

name 3

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Units defected to the other side all the time in battles throughout history.

Really? Name 3 decisive historical battles that were decided by unit defections?

[Fidel]

hm, nice one.
i only know about italian submarine surrendering to a british hydroplane in WW2. i guess that does not count as a major battle

[Urban Ranger]

Re: name 3

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Really? Name 3 decisive historical battles that were decided by unit defections?

Why should I answer your pointless and ill-defined question? First of all, what do you mean by "decisive historial battles?" Do you mean the battles were short, they ended some long-standing conflicts. or that they changed the course of history? Secondly, how much do we know about history? Or rather, how much do you know about history?

[Grumbold]

Bribing units was quite common in the Renaissance era when mercenary condotteries supplied the bulk of the army rather than trained National troops. In any period mercenary troops being paid to fight (or quite often, promised pay but not given it) have been able to be swayed to the other side or desert. This has often changed the short term course of a war or helped win a battle. It is also quite common to bribe an enemy nation into agreeing not to start a war.

The difficulty with Civ though is that the bulk of the military costs and delay lie in creating your army. In reality while an army could be raised in a year it was so fabulously expensive to maintain that most wars lost everyone involved lives and money without accomplishing a great deal. In Civ armies are cheap and military victories provide immediate benefits. If culture means that well developed cities will cost more to garrison than they return in increased productivity for many many years, then perhaps Civ 3 will be finally starting to redress the balance.

[TechWins]

Really? Name 3 decisive historical battles that were decided by unit defections?

Tell me if you can name one time in Civ2 that when the other
civ(s) bribed your units that it made you loose the war or even made you loose a considerable number of units. Bribery really isn't that big of a deal. Bribery is just Civ's way of portraying people who have betrayed there nation. I'm all for it, it adds a little bit of realism but doesn't take or add to the fun. So who cares.

I think that if you pay the citizens of a city to revolt that there's a 50% chance that it won't work and you won't get your money back.

Overall bribery does give a special advantage to the rich civs. Which should be in place because having a lot of gold doesn't really effect that much of the game except for rush jobs.

[Footie Mad]

Originally posted by TechWins

Overall bribery does give a special advantage to the rich civs. Which should be in place because having a lot of gold doesn't really effect that much of the game except for rush jobs.

But hasn't Firaxis already confirmed that in civ 3 your miltary units are all supported by gold? Thereby increasing the importance of wealth and giving an advantage to the rich civs, is it really necessary to also be able to bribe, does it add much to gameplay? In civ 2 i found it more annoying than fun when you could just buy everything.

[TechWins]

But hasn't Firaxis already confirmed that in civ 3 your miltary units are all supported by gold

That's true but I was referring to Civ2. I'm glad they did this for Civ3.

does it add much to gameplay

No, but does it really take that much away from gameplay? I have only bribed one city and that's it. Plus I have only had unit bribed away from me. I actually thought it was kind of cool in a way when my unit got bribed.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by TechWins


I have only bribed one city and that's it. Plus I have only had unit bribed away from me.

In other words, you haven't played much but that doesn't stop you having a freaking opinion on everything.

[TechWins]

In other words, you haven't played much but that doesn't stop you having a freaking opinion on everything.

No, in other words it just doesn't occur that much to me. Tell me if I'm wrong but isn't this forum open to anybody? So since I'm in a forum I'm allowed to be in I am also allowed to state whatever my opinion is. Even if that opinion is against your narrow-minded thinking ways. I have a question for you. Why do you think that you can act like a complete jackass to people just because you're deity?

[Alexander's Horse]

blah blah blah

By all means state your opinion but it would probably carry more wieght if it was an informed one, which we now know it isn't.

But thank you for your contributions to date, for what they are worth

[TechWins]

I can know see how you've been able to post over 10,000 to become a deity level. You have just posted 1-2 lines of non sense. That's allright though, I admire a really ambitious idiot.

[Alexander's Horse]

No need to troll

Tut tut, Techloses, try and stay on-topic.

[TechWins]

Tut tut, Techloses, try and stay on-topic.

I didn't lose anything. I'm the one who can support his opinion not you. So if that makes me a loser than I'm a big loser. Again you're the one who got off topic.