View Full Version : congress questions???


holy king
Oct 02, 2006, 08:21 AM
1.what determines what cities a civilization can claim during a congress????

iv played as rome (holding together france and greece who both declared independence twice and fighting off spain simultanously btw :crazyeye: )
when suddenly my best buddy germany claimed for mediolanum...... and declared war upon not getting it...

so i thought it would be cities with overlapping culture in city radius... but
then when i played japan, i couldnt claim for seol (wich was strongly influenced by kyotos culture), but the germans could claim for a chinese cosatal city and actually got it???

2. can a city lost due to a congress flip back?

Appren
Oct 02, 2006, 04:17 PM
1. ) (others might say different) - but its totally random!
2. ) no clue, since I never accept the demands anyway :D

Rhye
Oct 02, 2006, 06:09 PM
1. not true. it's chosen randomly within a poll of possible choices that include cities close to borders and in "highly valued" locations (corresponding to where the settlers want to go). Cities belonging to a player that's just born or that's considered friendly are always excluded.

Goa
Oct 03, 2006, 04:33 AM
Ah, that explains why once, when I was playing India, the french demanded (and got!!) my city which was located in Indochina... still very strange as the city was mine for thousands of years, I was second powerful behind the russians but far ahead of the french and the french didn't even have one city in asia.
Sincerly, while the congress is a good idea, stuff like that feels "strange".

NitroJay
Oct 03, 2006, 07:31 AM
It is odd sometimes... When I was playing India, the English requested (and got) Mandalay... I figure if I was playing as China, and founded the city of Hong Kong, the English would be going after that one too... I think the congress is a good idea, but it's just weird when I lose a city out of the blue... It wouldn't be so bad if I got some compensation for giving up the city, but I don't know how/if that would even work...

Sovietof17
Oct 03, 2006, 07:52 AM
congress should be eliminated. it is simply unfun. i've never received a city before.

Elhoim
Oct 03, 2006, 09:18 AM
I don´t think it should be eliminated, but I´m also not happy with it´s current state. Personally I think it should be limited to cities that were founded by the civ and it is in another hands, or that it has a good amount of the civ´s culture. I don´t like the idea of giving away city just because they had it in RL, while in the game they did nothing to deserve it.

NeoT
Oct 03, 2006, 10:17 AM
Congress should not be eliminated. There the civilizations just ask for the cities they want, even if they did nothing to deserve it. But i think that the AI should refuse to leave the cities more often (if it even happens). And maybe a bonus when you give away your city (Better relations whit the civilizations that voted "YES")

Hitti-Litti
Oct 03, 2006, 11:42 AM
I like congress, but it would be better, if you could claim 1) cities 2-0 tiles away from your border. 2) cities you have founded. 3) cities what are not in the owners homeland and claimer has a city in the continent.

Sovietof17
Oct 03, 2006, 11:57 AM
the congress makes no sense. what civilization would just up and leave a city to give it to someone else? i dont understand why it's in the game. it sucks and I hate it. I wish I could disable it.

dc82
Oct 03, 2006, 01:30 PM
I'll admit I'm not terribly fond of the Congress, esp. now when it makes seemingly random demands. If the Congress was to stay, it'd be better as others have suggested:

1. Cities caught in the borders between you and the other civ
2. Cities you have conquered from the other civ
3. Cities with a significant population from the other civ
4. Holy city of the official religion the civ currently possesses
5. Cities located in a the area of a Unique Goal/Achievement of the other civ

Also, I don't know if EVERYONE who voted against you should all declare war. I think refusing a city claim should result in a 50/50 chance of war with the civ trying to take your city. If he has any allies, they can join the war later on.

kairob
Oct 03, 2006, 02:09 PM
Also how about an option of not being involved (or loosing cities at all) by saying no when they ask if you want to join?

sikandar323
Oct 05, 2006, 09:02 PM
I think the World Congress would be work to stop war and exchange cities between the two sides in war. Each side in war claims a city, the congress decided who win, and if the loser side refuse the decision, some of the countries that vote againts its, declare war.

McA123
Oct 06, 2006, 04:01 PM
It was attempted to set congresses to occur after peace treaties were signed, but it wasn't possible.

I'm not exactly a big fan of the congress system, since I usually just refuse demands anyways, but i think it still does need a bit of tweaking.

Blasphemous
Oct 06, 2006, 06:15 PM
I had my first congress of the game earlier in my German UHV game and as the top dog I do get the feeling that congresses are extremely unfun. At least as they are right now. Even when a demand is theoretically "fair", like Russia demanding that I return Sankt-Peterburg, there's something that feels unnatural and unfair that I get into a war with both Russia (an ally since the last war and until this one) and France (who signed a peace treaty with me two turns prior to the congress), all this over a city I conquered centuries ago (must have been at least 500 years ago) and developed from practically zilch to the prosperous center of culture that it is now.
I think maybe the Congress system has to be rehashed so instead of being a tool for the weak to slow down the strong, it becomes a tool for diplomacy to force changes in the power balance. That is, it should be a much more diplomatic thing. The AI should mainly think about helping its friends and harming its enemies, and not about harming the strong and helping the weak. There should also be more leeway for controlling the results by diplomatic manipulation. I don't quite know what should be done but the way things are right now is definately unfun in many situations.
One idea that I can imagine as an example but will probably not be implemented is congress alliances - agreements between a group of allies to vote together in congress: on members' requests, always YES; on requests to take a member's city, always NO; on non-members' requests, by whatever the majority of members votes. This way if you have a group of close friends you can secure a lot of power in congresses.
That makes more sense than needing to keep a low profile to be able to keep your cities. It should be fun to succeed, not a pain in the ass. It does make sense that the top dog gets into major wars over small territorial disputes, but that should be programmed into regular diplomacy, not a mechanism for stripping away leaders' cities by force.

kairob
Oct 06, 2006, 07:03 PM
I kinda agree with you, I think choosing it on diplo relations makes more sence :)

Blasphemous
Oct 07, 2006, 06:11 AM
I actually just thought of another way, possibly simpler, to make the congress more diplomatic. I was thinking how it annoys me that every invited nation gets one vote when sometimes that means the two-city pariah gets to decide on the half-continent beloved-by-all diplomat. It wouldn't be fair to give out votes like in the UN because then the big guy will always decide. But how about giving votes to the popular guys?
Here's what I propose: instead of the whole bribery system, have a system where you get to nominate diplomats. Each invited civ gets 3 nominations, and you have to pick three civs to give them out to. You have to give 3 out no matter what, even if you don't like anybody. The AI will choose who to give nominations to based on relations: their best friends will get nominations, and they will avoid at all costs giving nomination to civs they have taken cities from. They will prefer smaller civs when all else is equal. To make things more diplomatic and interesting, create a diplo bonus "+1 You gave us a nomination in Congress!". This way you can use nominations to pacify relations with other civs and to make your nominations possibly help you (by making the nominated civ like you more). After nominations are distributed, each civ has 1 vote per nomination. Simple as that. If you make sure to keep your enemies to a minimum, the world will not gang up on you and redistribute your cities. If you have too many enemies you will end up strengthening them by giving them nominations.
Does this idea make sense to you all?

Elhoim
Oct 08, 2006, 10:35 AM
I think it´s a great one, Blas! :goodjob:

Tom Veil
Oct 08, 2006, 01:24 PM
I like Blas's idea, too, but I'll support any idea that helps the Congress function stay in the game. I think it's a wonderful idea; it just needs to value the history of diplomacy leading up to the Congress. Otherwise, the net effect is that in the late game, every player ends up hating every other player. That's a little too dystopian.

Willowmound
Oct 10, 2006, 05:58 AM
I've stoppet playing this mod because of the Congress system -- it just sucks the fun right out.

The only reason I'm reading the forum now, was to see whether it had been changed. Guess not :(

Such a shame.

kairob
Oct 10, 2006, 12:41 PM
I think that you should make it based on diplomacy, so people vote for who they like the most and voting for someone gives a diplo bonus and voting against gives a hit.

NitroJay
Oct 10, 2006, 06:53 PM
That's a little too dystopian.

I had to look that word up...

I agree though, I think the congress should stay in the game, but made to be less random... I have been playing games lately trying to go for a conquest style victory after seeing what folks have been doing with Incas and Aztecs in another thread, and that congress is REALLY spiteful... It's really annoying to refuse a demand and have civs I am on GREAT terms with turn against me so quickly...

Something as simple as tying it into the diplo system will go a long way... Maybe take a hit diplomatically by refusing a demand, and if that leads to wars with civs you wern't all on that good of terms with to begin with, then hey, it happens... But I don't like the way the current system works... It tends to favor the losers I think. :(

Edit: Kairob, I didn't see that you posted the exact same thing...

Hitti-Litti
Oct 11, 2006, 09:27 AM
Funny congresses in my game: Mali owned Constantinopolis, Sevastopol, Essen and Murcia in my game, and all in the same time. So that's random to you.

Zetetic Apparat
Oct 22, 2006, 08:03 AM
Sometimes they work out really nicely ; I ended up ceding Qingdao to the Germans in a congress (and then claimed it back in a later one) which seemed remarkably coincidental unless Germany is coded to want that area (since they then tried for Korea, I'm guessing not).

Tom Veil
Oct 22, 2006, 04:01 PM
Sometimes they work out really nicely ; I ended up ceding Qingdao to the Germans in a congress (and then claimed it back in a later one) which seemed remarkably coincidental unless Germany is coded to want that area (since they then tried for Korea, I'm guessing not).
Germany should be coded for that area; that was their "sphere of influence" in China in the late 1800s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Enclaves_in_China

Cucumber
Oct 22, 2006, 08:21 PM
First post so usual muchas gracias to Rhye for his funky mod

Proposition for the congress thing (which I love but it is weird to see the Persian claim for a british corecity like manchester for example)

A civ can claim a city if
- barbarian (anywhere the city is, it's accurate if you see the way european nations shared the world during 19th century), the barb cities must be the first to bow before the congress will
- the city in question got a minority (20-30% is well enough) of the population's civ
- the city was previously his own

think that limitate the congress to these three eventualities will keep the fun of it and will avoid weird demands

cheers

Rhye
Oct 23, 2006, 06:49 AM
Proposition for the congress thing (which I love but it is weird to see the Persian claim for a british corecity like manchester for example)


that will never happen


A civ can claim a city if
- barbarian (anywhere the city is, it's accurate if you see the way european nations shared the world during 19th century), the barb cities must be the first to bow before the congress will


that will be added in Warlords version, for native cities. For vanilla that would mean asking ANY barbarian city, and it would produce weird results

holy king
Oct 23, 2006, 07:31 AM
what about the minority restriction???
but i'd say 1 percent is enough, so your cultural borders just have to touch the city directly, so you can claim it...

Zetetic Apparat
Oct 23, 2006, 07:36 AM
Germany should be coded for that area; that was their "sphere of influence" in China in the late 1800s.
That's why it felt nice. Still not convinced that European powers should be coded to claim bits of China ; really it only happens because China doesn't trade the way they want it to.

Cucumber
Oct 23, 2006, 07:04 PM
[QUOTE=Rhye]that will never happen


If I used this example it's because it happens to me :D

kairob
Oct 23, 2006, 07:19 PM
you missed ya [/quote]

Elhoim
Oct 23, 2006, 11:10 PM
what about the minority restriction???
but i'd say 1 percent is enough, so your cultural borders just have to touch the city directly, so you can claim it...

I also agree with this. I think that the Congress cities should be in the desired area of the civ, and should met one of two conditions:

- Be founded by the demanding civ.
or
- Have some cultural influence in the city.

NitroJay
Oct 24, 2006, 11:59 AM
I disagree... Having the colonial civs ask for (and get) cities in their colonial goal areas adds a little something to the game... England always gets the Indian city of Mandalay and I'm guessing they would get Hong Kong from China (if they built it). England doesn't have culture there and it's nowhere near their borders, but they did have those areas historically...

holy king
Oct 24, 2006, 12:09 PM
thats just too deterministic...
they may try to conquer those areas they did historically, but just gifting it to them, without giving the (as in your example) indians the chance to be militarily stronger than they were in real world makes it a bit boring, dont you think???

in my last game (as america) the russians had conquered india and the arabian peninsula and the greeks controlled persia (which had collapsed around 500AD) and parts of middle europe, while i had to fight the spaniards, who had colonies in the middle west, the french and the english at one time, leaving the atzecs occupieing the west coast in 1952....

the congress as it is now takes away a lot of that alternate history thing
(and sometimes has just strange effects, when for example mali and greece declare war on you because you just didnt see the obvious reason why mali should control new york)

Phallus
Oct 24, 2006, 12:44 PM
In my last game Huayna Capac acquired a major city from every European nation through the congress. As soon as I refused him New York I faced a meaningless war with him in which he was 'friendly' to me throughout. The only reason the war lasted at all was because he was coded not to talk to me.

NitroJay
Oct 24, 2006, 12:58 PM
You make a good point... The congress makes silly demands in every game I play. I just finished an America game this morning, I was forced to destroy the Aztec and Inca because I rejected their demands for Kansas and Jacksonville respectivly. I was able to conquer England, but they revolted on my 3 times before the game ended. (But that's another gripe in another thread.)

The way I would like to see the congress system work, if it remains in the game come warlords, is more like this:

When voting, I'd like the AI to vote more along diplomatic lines. It seems to mostly vote for the underdog now...

When the AI picks out what city it will ask for, it should be something culturally close first, if none exists (like an island nation like England, with no cities near it), it should go for those places in the world it's been preprogrammed to colonize.

When you refuse a demand to leave a city, only the civ that asked should declare war (if that). I'd like to see a diplo hit with each civ that participated in the congress.

In turn then, leaving a city should give you a +1 diplo with the civs in congress as well.

Since the civs are voting along the lines of diplomacy relations, I see the diplomatically-challenged civs losing cities to congress, but making gains in diplomacy which could help them in the next congress session... Those civs that refuse to accept the congress's will will LOSE diplo points and be worse off in the next session... This will probably lead to war, but more on a global scale and only against the REALLY bad civs...)

(Sorry, I'm trying to type this out so that it makes sense, but I have a bunch of distractions going on around me...)

The other thing you mentioned, about the England example, I wish there could be a way to make England try diplomacy to get cities like Mandalay and Hong Kong... Maybe offer huge amounts of Gold or Techs for those cities. That would give China and England a chance to at least break even on the deal and help those two civs specifically to catch up. (They seem to always be lagging in the late game...)

Elhoim
Oct 24, 2006, 01:02 PM
Cool ideas, NitroJay! :goodjob:

Phallus
Oct 24, 2006, 01:35 PM
I like Nitrojay's suggestions. Currently there's very little diplomacy involved in the congress.

McA123
Oct 24, 2006, 05:18 PM
Mmm, it's basically (and this is how I vote too), take cities away from the strong civs and give them to the weak civs.

kairob
Oct 24, 2006, 06:01 PM
I like NitroJays Ideas, but I think that you should get a diplo bonus for voting for someone and a negative for voting against, (so if england tries to get Mandalay, then if you vote yes, you get plus one for england, and minus one for india, and if you vote no then you get plus one from india and minus one from england.)

Rhye
Oct 24, 2006, 06:15 PM
you all don't know that some of the balancements you asked are already in next patch.
From the changelog of 1.42:

- Removed malus for human player in Congresses (added bonus instead)
- Cities distant from homeland less likely to be asked in Congresses by European powers
- AI doesn’t ask cities to ”pleased” civs too, instead of just ”friendly”
- Increased weight of considering friends and foes in AI voting
- War is not always declared when human player refused to trade cities in Congress



However, NitroJay's proposal sounds good and if I have time I'll add it (it takes some time to code that)


[QUOTE=Rhye]that will never happen
If I used this example it's because it happens to me :D


it shouldn't happen, according to the rules AI follows to ask cities. If it did happen, there was a reason matching one of the criterias.

NitroJay
Oct 24, 2006, 06:51 PM
Hmm... kairob's idea makes sense. It reminds me of Master of Orion 3's congress... (Yeah, I'll admit I'm one of the 7 people in the world that actually got into that game...) In MoO3 (and maybe MoO2), I remember you could sway the congress system in diplomacy, give gold or techs to secure votes in your favor. My idea of tying in the congress system with the diplomacy relations would allow this. (You could suck up to the civs in the congress in the turns before the votes...)

Anyway, kairob's idea would make voting a little more of a thought process... As it stands now, if I am playing as America and Persia asks for an Egyptian city, I could really care less... Making a yes/no vote give me a +1/-1 for different civs forces you to make a call, or at the very least, make the AI civs (and the player one) abstain more often in city exchanges they have no real interest in...

I still think that refusing the congress shouldn't result in all (or half) of the yes vote civs declare war. In addition to a big diplo hit from all the civs in congress, maybe throw some economic sanctions on them first. Have the yes civs start trade embargos...! I mean, that's how it starts for countries that disobey the UN resolutions, right?

Edit: You know, while on the subject of Master of Orion, remember in the 1st or 2nd one when you disobeyed the congress? EVERYONE declared war on you... Please don't let that happen in civ. :)

kairob
Oct 24, 2006, 07:23 PM
How about if you refuse then they ban you from the next congress? or is that unhistorical?

NitroJay
Oct 24, 2006, 07:30 PM
I thought about that, but what if you were never in congress to begin with? I've played as Aztec or Inca and I was never invited, but I was still asked to give up a city. If I'm not in the congress anyway, what's the incentive to do what they want?

kairob
Oct 25, 2006, 02:32 PM
true, I also thought while we are still playing with it maybe if by being invited but refusing to go you were omited somehow, then people who find it so infuriating as it is that they dont play into the end game could do without it untill it works better?

Willowmound
Oct 26, 2006, 12:33 AM
true, I also thought while we are still playing with it maybe if by being invited but refusing to go you were omited somehow, then people who find it so infuriating as it is that they dont play into the end game could do without it untill it works better?

I would love it if that were implemented. Then no one would have anything to complain about. It's a great suggestion.

holy king
Oct 26, 2006, 07:49 AM
it wont work better without playtesting...

Phallus
Oct 26, 2006, 10:36 AM
I like kairob's idea not because I can avoid the congress, but because it gives avoiding the congress a purpose.

NitroJay
Oct 26, 2006, 03:45 PM
I have to agree with holy king... If you can avoid the congress, then what's the incentive to improve it? And if it's not going to be improved, why not just eliminate it? Don't get me wrong, I like the congress, it just needs to be tweaked. I haven't got around to trying it out with the new version yet though, I haven't had a game get that far yet...

As for kairob's idea, it sounds good on the surface, but let me ask you this: What if I'm not invited at all? Will I still have the potential to lose cities? And if I AM invited and say no, will there be some diplomatic penalty for "walking away from the table?" I think there should be, but then maybe BEING invited yet NOT attending is good if you're REALLY big (a.k.a 1980's Soviet Union or Present China) and don't want smaller nations imposing on you. They'll be a little pissed at you diplomatically, but you're safe from losing (or gaining) anything. But then this idea takes away from part of the "balancing" the congress is all about... I'm a little torn... I think it should be kept the way it is for now and just improved...

Elhoim
Oct 26, 2006, 04:19 PM
I think that if you leave a congress, diplomatic penalties and trade embargos should be issued.