Well it ranks up there for sure, not being able to pass squares allies hold, even if you have a passage agreement with them. I've been holed up on this one Continent for ages because my allie plugged the single tile land passage way with a unit. I do hope you will be able to pass units you have a passage agreement with in civ 4.

A brotherhood agreement where you can even enter each others city (and certainly share the same tiles) like in alpha centuri would be nice too.

Yeah that annoyed me too. I just learned to work around it by blocking tiles to prevent my allies and enemies alike from expanding. I wouldn't want my allies just walking into my tiles any time they wanted so maybe it'd be more efficient to have diplomacy to ask permission every time you try to cross into another civ held tile. That way I could pass through other civ's tiles but not let them pass through my own, lol.

:mad: I hate this...

i was an alli of sum1 who was going in to war and had loads of people scattered everywhere and i couldent get anywhere to help hem invade the enemy city when i had a mutal protection pact so i had the other team as enemys too, so they kept sending air units and blowing me to pieces!

Its been like that since Civ1. Leave it where it is...

no, innovation in this point would be a good thing. Perhaps, you'd need to reask permission all 5 turns or so?

mitsho

From a PC point of view this is great. But if an NPC asks you for a passag? If you say "no" relations worsen. If you say "yes" NPC would pass through your land and colonise whats beyond it. Sometimes you want to avoid that.

I totally concur. This is something that really bugged me.

I think there should be an new treaty called the Collaborative Alliance that allows you to cooperate with another civ. Your units can occupy/move through the same tiles as their units, your units can defend their cities and vis versa. You would still have the Vanilla military alliances and MPPs, but if you wanted to go that extra mile of trust and cooperation, you could sign this treaty for the added bonus. Also, if you captured a city that originally belonged to your CA'd civ, you'd have the option of giving it back to them. (Think WWII. The Americans didn't just sit outside the British cities or occupy Paris until France came back to take it by force.)

I'm not saying this would be common. But it should be an option.

yeah, that actually seems like a good idea eskimo :thumbsup:

@gelion I know and I think we should eliminate this. Although I use this strategy (blocking of passages) sometimes in my game, I think it could be called cheating. And besides, you can still do it, you just get a penalty which is rather good imo.

mitsho

@gelion I know and I think we should eliminate this. Although I use this strategy (blocking of passages) sometimes in my game, I think it could be called cheating. And besides, you can still do it, you just get a penalty which is rather good imo.

mitsho
Well many nations had border patrols - IMO its quite realistic and I do not call it cheating :). I often use additional units to contol my borders not just cities by the borders. But again I mostly play Civ 2.

I like to respect civ tradition, I generally don't like to put away something like that. I can be annoying, but more useful than annoying. Blocking every body to pass a chokepoint is always useful. What is next? You able to put units in ennemy cities? It would lead to MAJOR exploits, worst than RoP rape (which shouldn't be legal in Gotm AT ALL).

@guy So are you for or against and of what? Thats a confusing post.


Its been like that since Civ1. Leave it where it is...
Alpha centuri had something called a brotherhood agreement. Relations really had to be sweet to have this agreement. It allowed you to occupy the same space as your brotherhood units and even be in there cities (and visa versa). If you canceled the agreement you would be ejected to borders, no exploit involved. AC was a very good civ 2 spin off. AC was the last civ game before civ 3 so it is in civ tradition... sort of.

Its not just friends blocking access.. it also makes joint fights against a enemy nearly impossible sometimes because you block each other so much. Tradition or not not being able to pass allies hurts civ in its most important area, diplomacy (because of how difficult it makes cooperating with others) Of course civ 3 has a terrible AI diplomacy system as it is even not considering this issue.

Civ 4 won't be worth buying imo if this severe problem isn't fixed.

Alpha centuri had something called a brotherhood agreement. Relations really had to be sweet to have this agreement. It allowed you to occupy the same space as your brotherhood units and even be in there cities (and visa versa). If you canceled the agreement you would be ejected to borders, no exploit involved. AC was a very good civ 2 spin off. AC was the last civ game before civ 3 so it is in civ tradition... sort of.
SMAC has a lot of good ideas that weren't used in Civ3. The brotherhood pact is more than a mutual protection pact, as it allows units of different nations to ocupy the same square, even allied cities.

SMAC has a totally different terrain, sometimes seems better than Civilization series terrain, sometimes seems worst. The raise/lower/flatten terrains is good for that style, but it will never fit well in Civ terrain.

A very good idea in SMAC, which isn't used in Civ3, is more terrain improvements. When you get an advanced tech, you can add irrigations to get more food. Civ could have a tech to improve productions without making "railroads gives +1 food or shild, accordingly to existing improvement" :rolleyes:.

I totally agree!
Alliances must work much better than in civ3

Most annoying things I found about Civ 3 was the multiplayer chat system...I cant believe more people havent commented on this. You say something and it disappears in only a few seconds and it doesnt let you know if someone said something if your looking in your city. This one trait alone has almost turned me off the game completely because you need to use another chat program if you really want to talk and its a real pain having to minimize the game in order to talk to someone.

@guy So are you for or against and of what? Thats a confusing post.
Against.
btw, I prefer you say tyguy

well mabe this combined arms thing will include the simultanious occupation of squares. Multinational work that way, and if you liberate a city that was formerly of your ally it shuld go back to his control. there is nothing more anoying than having your resource high culture city taken, then liberated by your ally and then not get it back. Besides does anyone know the value of a city (in terms of gold) in civ3? and why can't you trade cities for anything?

cheers

Well, this needs to be kept out so ROP rapes can still happen, but I think it should be implemented in Locked alliances.

meh mabe all we need to have is an expulsion of all units upon cancelation of alliance (Civ2 SMAC)...