Refusing to see my envoy -- This can be done better.

[David Weldon]

I have a problem with the game's refusal to see my envoy. Basically it is a poor design decision that eliminates any possibility of "interesting choices", as Sid would put it.

It would make much more sense to have them see my envoy, and then simply refuse or put an extravagant price on peace. At least then we _might_ have a choice as to what to do. I'm not suggesting that the concept of AI anger be eliminated, only that it be implemented properly.

The way the current system works, it is impossible to pay someone for peace once a war has started. Sure you can give in to extortion _before_ the war, but you can't offer "protection" fees after the war has started because the AI won't initiate communication again until it wants peace (normally that takes the razing of exactly 2 cities). We should have the choice of pleading for them to accept peace at a high price if we're willing to pay it. This is especially true after the war has dragged on for a long time with no real affect on either civ.

It is important to realize that this would require very little modification to the existing code, and it would add tremendously to the quasi-realism and fun of playing.

[Redstar]

this is new with patch..right?

anyway, it plays alot like civ2 that way now.

You can't ask for peace so soon after declaring war..or them declaring on you.

It makes sense that when hostilities break out..people would not want to see ya.

In the old days envoys would often be thrown to the lions etc...


This way you can't get out of war so easy. I think that is good.
Before the patch, i was in the habit of making peace with the french every turn..so as to save my conquered cities reverting back.

Just another person's opinion is all

[David Weldon]

I'm not saying that they should let you make peace, just that they should hear what you're willing to offer.

If you want peace the turn after starting an unfair war, maybe they require your entire treasury.

After the second time, maybe a city or two.

After that, maybe 5-10 cities.

etc...

There should be an "outrageous" price for peace, not the absence of any possible deal. Again with the interesting choices mantra...

If you want to avoid exploits, let a time limit be involved. After 10 turns, he's willing to hear you, but demands outrageous prices. After 20 turns it's back to normal. Or something.

The real point here is to avoid being trapped in an eternal war where your only choice is to raze exactly two cities, and then declare an even peace (or sometimes even a peace where he is paying you!) It should be possible to be in situation where you are paying him to end the war.

[dweez]

Originally posted by David Weldon
I'm not saying that they should let you make peace, just that they should hear what you're willing to offer.

Why? I sometimes refuse to speak with them (simply not interested, regardless of price), so they should be able to ignore me in the same manner.

[Xentropy]

Main problem is it's simply taken too far. Ten turns, or even in a case where they REALLY hate you twenty, of ignoring your envoy I can handle. I do the same to them if they try to sue that quickly after I declare war on them. But after this (MUCH shorter than currently) amount of time, they should see your envoy, just out of curiousity, even if they don't plan on accepting anything short of your soul to stop the war.

[Malleus]

It seems odd that the computer should be given the right to throw my democracy into anarchy just because they declared war on me.
Six (6) wars I have had in which they were the aggressors, I pounded them thoroughly (normally without significant loss myself, and they just refuse to see me until I drop into anarchy (or in the last game, switch to communism).
This seems a bit powerful on their part:
1) Forcing me into a war.
2) Destroying my government, even while losing.

K

[Special_Olympic]

Originally posted by Kromwel
It seems odd that the computer should be given the right to throw my democracy into anarchy just because they declared war on me.
Six (6) wars I have had in which they were the aggressors, I pounded them thoroughly (normally without significant loss myself, and they just refuse to see me until I drop into anarchy (or in the last game, switch to communism).
This seems a bit powerful on their part:
1) Forcing me into a war.
2) Destroying my government, even while losing.

K

Yes, this is incredibly stupid. It makes it hellish to play as a republic or a democracy.

[Redstar]

ah i see we have different experiences

"After 10 turns, he's willing to hear you, but demands outrageous prices. After 20 turns it's back to normal. Or something.
"

FOr me the refusal has only lasted around 4 turns.
But i guess that was because they were heavily under the gun.


And in civ2 it wasn't that long either.

So i guess i assumed wrong. So many turns of no contact would be a bad thing.

[David Murray]

There is a simple solution to stopping the AI from threatening your democracy, and that's bombing the f*** out of them and razing a few of their cities. That should passify them.

Two cheers for democracy, eh?

[Nexus VI]

Just take one of its cities and watch him cry for peace...

...but sometimes the problem is to take one of its cities...

[Aurochs]

Funny...I've never had any trouble getting them to talk peace. And I never raze cities. They usually come to me begging, well before the war's over.

Maybe they won't see your envoy because you've broken too many diplomatic agreements?

The turn after starting a war? Of course they won't listen to you then. They're waiting for you to make up your mind. Mebbe they're even afraid of your schizophrenic envoy.

[Venger]

I agree with David's premise and many of the comments in this thread.

Some have said you can refuse their envoy - not! They just pop up on your screen!

This is a crucial problem because of the fall of democracies in war. I TRIED to make peace with other Civs. They never would. In fact, I think it may be hard coded to WAIT until after your government falls to allow contact, and if so, that's atrocious.

Venger

[gachnar]

Originally posted by Venger
This is a crucial problem because of the fall of democracies in war. I TRIED to make peace with other Civs. They never would. In fact, I think it may be hard coded to WAIT until after your government falls to allow contact, and if so, that's atrocious.

Atrocious: Nice word.

I saw this as problem #17 with immediate multiplayer. Me against l337-n00bi3. I attack him. Through the Diplomatic screens. Then I fortify like hell. War weariness attacks us both. So I make peace with him. That same turn Venger (who decides that he likes the idea) starts a war with the guy. Now, assuming we can buy a couple AIs into the war with us, we can keep him at war pretty much forever.

Hard? Nope. I do this all the time. The persians committed a string of atrocities against my civilization (They had extra iron i wanted to sell to germany, they placed a city i was going to capture though culture one square away from where I wanted it, they had saltpeter i had none... you know... atrocities). So I grabbed their city with the iron.

I saw they were a republic (me too). I think: "This would be easier if they were crippled." So I sold the iron to germany for a 20 turn war pact. Rome went for 110 gold. England for spices. Same for Iroquois, etc for all 8 other civs. Persia didn't see a year of peace again. I dont think they ever changed government. They suffered from horrible unhappiness and were finally destroyed.

If there were ever 8 humans playing together, and were ever allowed to plan strategies, they could pull off some truly horrible things.

I think the weakest link quote was appropriate. I see exactly that happening (namely: castrate/cripple/gank/bugger the leader), with democracies seen as ripe targets (big cities to grab!!).

[Malleus]

I should clairfy my point above.
In one war I fought (which I was not the agressor...they tried to move about ninety knights through my land to get at someone on the other side...I thought not) I razed seven cities and captured one in the first four turns of the war. So winning against them is not the problem.
I killed (I prefer "dispersed") seventy units of population of the enemy in four turns. If that doesn't make them sue for peace, I don't know what would.

N.B. I was playing a peaceful game, traded techs and maps a lot, and they always aggressed. My diplo. standing is excellent.

K

[edit] It is for reasons like the above that I will not play with the most aggressive nations: India, Zulu and Persia.

[David Weldon]

To reiterate a previous post:

The real point here is to avoid being trapped in an eternal war where your only choice is to raze exactly two cities, and then declare an even peace (or sometimes even a peace where he is paying you!) It should be possible to be in situation where you are paying him to end the war.

For the record, I have never been unable to sue for peace if I really wanted to. The only problems I run into is the requirement of loading up a couple transports and sailing them to a faraway country to raze or capture a few cities. After that they always listen to me. After that they always accept either straight-up peace, or they're willing to pay me for peace.

Under no circumstances have I ever been able to contact a civ and offer to pay them for peace. That's the part I feel is broken. There should be a gray area between refusal and willingness for peace where I can bargain to obtain peace if I want to avoid the tedium of moving in an invasion force.