Forgive me for bringing this up if it's been discussed before but I couldn't find the thread with it in there. Wouldn't it be realistic that, if I conquored a neighboring civ who had knowledge of a technology that I didn't, that I would have a slight chance of picking it up? There is always the chance that you would destroy the tech as I was invading, but there should be a chance that I may be able to learn it, like say 10%.

It also may be interesting to scale it up, the more advanced you are from me. For instance, if you are extremely advanced (you have 8 more techs than I do) and I invade one of your cities (I get lucky, if you have 8 more techs than I do), that I have a better chance of at least learning one of the 8 extra techs. So perhaps we could set it up as a 10% chance + 2% for every additional tech. So for 8 techs I would have a 10 + 7*2 = 24% chance of learning a new tech if I conquest one of your cities.

Something like this may help balance out if I fall behind in techs having to counteract Orthus in the early game where you did not.

I'd have to say... no. Just no.

As is, the first person to get a powerful hero (say, Bambur or Saverous) can already steamroll through enemy territories (at least AI enemy territories), getting loads of gold and land if they want it. With something like this implemented, they'd also get a free back-fill of missed techs.

there is however a mod pack for ffh that includes some tech conquering
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=184795

I'd have to say... no. Just no.

As is, the first person to get a powerful hero (say, Bambur or Saverous) can already steamroll through enemy territories (at least AI enemy territories), getting loads of gold and land if they want it. With something like this implemented, they'd also get a free back-fill of missed techs.

Thats generally my feeling as well. From a design perspective conquest is rewarding enough without having a tech bonus as well.

personally ive just been using the gold from conquest to up my science rate, and whenever im starting to get low on gold again i attack someone else and pillage like crazy heh

an interesting addition might be to have one of the leader traits like arcane or something, give you science towards your current tech instead of gold for city capture and pillaging.

personally ive just been using the gold from conquest to up my science rate, and whenever im starting to get low on gold again i attack someone else and pillage like crazy heh

It is my opinion, after reading most of your posts in this forum, that you should never be given a position of real power. Lest we find ourselves pillaging others for "funzies."
-Qes

i hardly need real power, everything real degrades due to the nature of its reality, so its a poor substitute for true power

i hardly need real power, everything real degrades due to the nature of its reality, so its a poor substitute for true power

You must admit the worry is legitimate and rational. Funzie wars are dangerous.
-Qes

well personally i never attack first, but in my SP games theres usually one or two people that have declared war on me, and when i need gold i just finally go mess them up some lol

though in my current game i did declare war and kill two settler/warrior stacks from two other civs for approaching my next city spot heh, didnt have to build any workers that game since i got them from settlers :D


but regarding your worries, your legitimacies and rationals have no more substance than my whims, and its not like real powers have good reasons for invading places, they just make things up (like "they have nuclear weapons!" "oh wait, no they don't" "they have connections to terrorist organizations!" "oh wait, no they don't")

well personally i never attack first, but in my SP games theres usually one or two people that have declared war on me, and when i need gold i just finally go mess them up some lol

though in my current game i did declare war and kill two settler/warrior stacks from two other civs for approaching my next city spot heh, didnt have to build any workers that game since i got them from settlers :D


but regarding your worries, your legitimacies and rationals have no more substance than my whims, and its not like real powers have good reasons for invading places, they just make things up (like "they have nuclear weapons!" "oh wait, no they don't" "they have connections to terrorist organizations!" "oh wait, no they don't")

True. I guess "for funzies" would be a better reason for war than some that i've heard recently.

Well then i will simply hope the winds of your whims flow favorably for me.:P
-Qes

I like tech conquest because it's gives a benefit, in general, to someone who is behind, not to the person already ahead. If someone in the top 3 starts taking out weaklings, they won't get any tech from it. And if you think it would be an exploit to zero your research and use the money to mass-produce military and get your tech from conquest, it just won't be enough to make up for the lack of knowledge (at least, the way I have the .ini file settings configured).

The main reason I like tech conquest is because it's realistic. As well, I prefer to turn tech trading off (as I don't understand how it could work that way in the 'real world') and have all tech 'sharing' take place through conquest and, primarily, tech 'leaking' (via trade routes).

- Niilo

And of course the main simulation of tech-leaking in the game is the fact that the more Civs you know of (open borders or not) that know a tech, the cheaper it is. I believe this mechanic caused quite a bit of confusion and ire in Unser's infamous civilization comparison.

If basing it off of techs strictly isn't a viable strategy (building a hero and kicking everyone's butt would fill in your techs), then why not make it also based off of your score relative to the other civs? Since your score is the relative indicator of the overall strength of your civ as compared to everyone else, then if your score is higher than who you are conquoring, you have no chance of tech conquest. But, if you are "behind" the other civ, and you are lucky enough to take one of their cities, I still think it is very realistic to assume you would be able to learn some of their technologies.

I think Kael is trying to code up the AI to offer techs for peace more often instead of simply conquering for techs. My biggest gripe is that the AI can be down to 1 city and not offer a basic tech for peace. :mad: If they were to acknowledge their hopelessness and offer a tech or 2 I'd sue for peace instead of wiping them out.

And if the AI offers up tech for peace and you break the treaty, they should not easily, if ever, make such an offer again (should they survive the betrayal of course). Also everyone else on the map will notice your treachery and adjust their offers to you accordingly.

I suspect the reason why the vanilla AI refuses to make such offers is to prevent players from repeatedly punching AIs in the face as an alternative to the research slider. :)

there could be longer peace treaties, like, 100 turn peace treaties that AI's will agree to for techs

I think Kael is trying to code up the AI to offer techs for peace more often instead of simply conquering for techs. My biggest gripe is that the AI can be down to 1 city and not offer a basic tech for peace. :mad: If they were to acknowledge their hopelessness and offer a tech or 2 I'd sue for peace instead of wiping them out.

Maybe the AI sees it like a player would:
Why should I offer my techs when I am down to one city? At that point I am already out of the game. With one city I won't be able to recover. Either you or some other player will wipe me out soon anyway.
So why should I give techs to you, the one who brought me down? Only to live 10 turns longer? I might as well go down fighting!

RP-wise this may be a bad behaviour for an AI, but honestly how many of you would let the AI live on when the treaty expires? I wouldn't.

Maybe do it like Uberslacker said: you can get techs for peace, but when you attack again right after the treaty expires you get a bad reputation and the AIs won't offer techs for peace anymore.

100 turn peace treaty or maybe they could ask for cities back in exchange for techs

The current peace process in CivIV doesn't allow a two-way trade, though. At least, the last time I tried it.

- Niilo

well a new option called 100 turn peace should be created that does allow 2 way trades :p

I think Kael is trying to code up the AI to offer techs for peace more often instead of simply conquering for techs. My biggest gripe is that the AI can be down to 1 city and not offer a basic tech for peace. :mad: If they were to acknowledge their hopelessness and offer a tech or 2 I'd sue for peace instead of wiping them out.

This quote caught most of my attention, but reading the others I think were all on to something here.

Firstly I agree that civs should be more pragmatic. But a few should just be those "Stubborn bastards". Perhaps personality determines whehter or not "fair trade" vs "F-you" mentalities of the Civ in dire straits.

Secondly, I like the idea of a 100 turn peace treaty, but how to enforce it? IF someone really wanted to break it, should they still be able, though perhaps suffering some consequence? (Perhaps losing diplomacy with EVERYONE else?)

Thirdly, Peace negotiations should always be a two way street possibility. Sometimes, i want unconditional surrender. Sometimes i just want peace. Sometimes I want to Haggle - Haggleing is currently not an option.

Youre all SMRT
-Qes

I've always thought that war and peace were more simple than they needed to be in Civ IV. FfH has some very interesting units, but the basic mechanics are the same. I wouldn't mind seeing some more options, but aren't the diplomacy rules hardcoded into the game? Thought I heard that somewhere.

if it was a 100 turn peace it would be unbreakable, isnt the 10 turn peace unbreakable? that would be the point, itd be stupid to agree to 100 turns of peace when it can be broken lol

A hundred turns is a long time, you know. And unless there's some sort of sorcerous power keeping the two armies apart, it's realistic for one side to be able to break it. Of course no one would want to make any more deals with an oathbreaker...

better just to not allow it, make it a spell if need be, i dont care heh (like a spell that would kill the leader if they kill the other leader)

but theres already the magical 10 turn peace treaty, see no reason not to do a 100 turn one. and why 100? because it *is* a long time, enough time to maybe make a comeback

well a new option called 100 turn peace should be created that does allow 2 way trades :p

I'd go further. Create a scale of three to five peace treaties of varying length (and value). Say, 10 turns, 20 turns, 50 turns, 75 turns, 100 turns. Breaking a shorter treaty would be MUCH less of a betrayal than a longer and the longer the treaty lasted for, the greater the impact of breaking it.

This could possibly be connected to the bonus for having peace in the first place, a +7 'we have a treaty' bonus gained after being in a hundred turn treaty for sixty turns switches to a -7 'you are a backstabbing bastard' penalty whereas a ten turn treaty would only give a +1 bonus AFTER the treaty had been successfully concluded.

Actually, I kind of like this idea. In order to gain bonuses for being at peace, players have to actually forge peace treaties and stick to them. Two nations that have no such treaties would actually see a deteriorating relationship and their eventual collapse into war would suprise no-one (and gain little diplomatic penalties). To refuse an offer of a peace treaty could provide a diplomatic hit as you show the world you have no commitment to peace.

Ideally the shorter deals could be more easily made and broken, but the big ones help create lasting ties and forever alter world politics if they are violated.

There could also be non-intervention treaties. 'I will not interfere with you as long as you don't attack ME. With a more elaborate version saying '...and leave the Amurites alone too, please.'

......Another thought:

Might it be be possible to create reputation tags that civs earn or lose as a result of their actions? These would affect the plausibility of diplomatic actions. A 'Warmonger' (started two or more wars) gets a lot more attention when she demands loot from her peacable neighbours, whereas the 'Switzerland player' (non-intervention treaties with half or more of the total number of players in the game) gets open border treaties VERY easily.

the current peace treaties force 10 turns peace, i.e. you cant attack them, this is what is needed, but longer, and its not like you've forced into it, it would be something you choose, it can be represented many ways (a geas forcing both parties to agree or die, or giving them all your military plans/strategies for the next 100 turns, and establishing embasies and partially unification so that your people and armies would never sanction your actions of war against them for the time period specified)

I think treaties that you can't break should only be available after one or both parties have researched a tech that gives access to the geas techniques.

I like the unbreakable treaties, but it would be a nice change to be able to break them, and to know that your new and untrusted allies should be watched closely for a while untill your relationship firms up. But even then, can you really trust the Bannor?

(The answer is no. Bastards!)

sure, make it available with Ancient Chants lol

and the point is to make it unbreakable, if its going to be breakable it might as well stay as the current peace treatie which already does that and already applies negative diplomacy modifiers for declaring war on someone

I want both, though! I like the certainty of the unbreakables and the certainty of the breakables.

Maybe the unbreakable treaties could be earlier, and there could be some way to break the geases that afflicted the world with politicians forced to keep their word later on. (I can hear the peasants cheering already...'Our king can lie to us again! Whoopee!')

I just want more flexibility and subtlety in the options available.

This is also all contigent on being able to make the AI use any hypothetical new functions, I suppose.

oh, id want both too, i just think if the ai's life depends on it, its not gonna give its possible executor free techs unless it has real assurances, and 10 turns isnt enough

Maybe the turns for the peace threaty should also be affected by game speed. 10 turns in a quick game would make a different - where on marathon those pass quickly without anything happening.

thats a good point

......Another thought:

Might it be be possible to create reputation tags that civs earn or lose as a result of their actions? These would affect the plausibility of diplomatic actions. A 'Warmonger' (started two or more wars) gets a lot more attention when she demands loot from her peacable neighbours, whereas the 'Switzerland player' (non-intervention treaties with half or more of the total number of players in the game) gets open border treaties VERY easily.


I like this idea. But labels should be very hard to get. Maybe one could only gain a label in mid/late game. That way a LOT of effort had to be put into it. Plus who doesnt love titles?
-Qes

Especially if the AI could get them and they displayed after/under the name in the displomacy screen.
Einon Logos the Peacemaker, Sabathiel the Warmonger, Sheelba the Burner.

I like this idea. But labels should be very hard to get. Maybe one could only gain a label in mid/late game. That way a LOT of effort had to be put into it. Plus who doesnt love titles?
-Qes

I concur. My conditions were just examples to indicate the idea's direction. My ideas are intended to help create a diplomatic system that requires work, is interesting to use and provides tangible benefits that work well as gameplay mechanics and contribute to flavour. You know, simple, easy stuff. :)

oh, id want both too, i just think if the ai's life depends on it, its not gonna give its possible executor free techs unless it has real assurances, and 10 turns isnt enough

When it's panicking, sure it'll need assurances. But on a first encounter, two civs might try out a short term, easily breakable treaty just to gauge the other's merit and rack up a cheap diplomatic bonus with a neighbour. I figure the bonus from a ten turn breakable treaty might only be gained once, but it's there to help ease the pangs of sharing borders as people get to know each other.