Wow. That's a rather big point! Me too, come to think of it.
Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword - Expansion no2!
- Thread starter JamieCiv4Files
- Start date
Yeah definatley it should go away over time. Although, I would say it should be equal to slavery x 3 or 4 as far as length-wise. Or at least double. That is 60/90/120 turns on marathon.
This makes it so that not many cities could really be moved in one game. For instance, after you dispose of one of your cities fighting off invading enemy culture, you won't be able to do another one fighting the same thing 10 turns later.
well 20 turns is OK I guess, 30 turns seems a bit too much, I's Probably never use it at all, If the cost is too high there's point in adding an Abandon City button, I guess the makers have to somehow balance it correctly.
Abandoning a city should be simple: you pull your troops out, then select "abandon city". The city then becomes a barbarian city.
You may choose to attack the barbarian city with your own troops. When you do so, the city shrinks in size by 1.
Abandoning a city should generate unhappiness.
Take the cities size times each of it's culture's. This is your cultural abandonment index for each culture.
For each existing city, multiply it's percent of each culture by the appropriate index. Add up the result. Take the square root. That is your total abandonment index for each of your other cities.
City Abandonment Index, rounded up, is the number of unhappy citizens.
City Abandomment Index, times 20 turns, rounded up, is the number of turns you gain these unhappy citizens.
...
So if you abandon a 100% your culture size 5 city:
In a city that is 100% your culture you get 3 unhappy faces for 45 turns.
In a city that is only 50% your culture, you get 2 unhappy faces for 32 turns.
Similar rules could be used for razing a captured city to the ground.
If you wanted to be really cruel, you could even have the duration be measured in years: so razing a city in the modern day can result in very long-term pain, but doing it in 3000 BC is relatively painless.
You may choose to attack the barbarian city with your own troops. When you do so, the city shrinks in size by 1.
Abandoning a city should generate unhappiness.
Take the cities size times each of it's culture's. This is your cultural abandonment index for each culture.
For each existing city, multiply it's percent of each culture by the appropriate index. Add up the result. Take the square root. That is your total abandonment index for each of your other cities.
City Abandonment Index, rounded up, is the number of unhappy citizens.
City Abandomment Index, times 20 turns, rounded up, is the number of turns you gain these unhappy citizens.
...
So if you abandon a 100% your culture size 5 city:
In a city that is 100% your culture you get 3 unhappy faces for 45 turns.
In a city that is only 50% your culture, you get 2 unhappy faces for 32 turns.
Similar rules could be used for razing a captured city to the ground.
If you wanted to be really cruel, you could even have the duration be measured in years: so razing a city in the modern day can result in very long-term pain, but doing it in 3000 BC is relatively painless.
Gaius Octavius
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2006
- Messages
- 4,016
This is an interesting idea. Much more realistic than having the entire city blown up, I suppose. So my guess is that if you really wanted it gone, you could just attack and then raze it?
boarder
King
Sounds good but after warlords (kinda sucked and didnt really add anything useful)and the well debacle is probably to harsh a word after the release of civ4 and half the vid cards not being able to play it I am skeptical that it will be all that it says it will be.
Hope im wrong of course.
Hope im wrong of course.
Sorry I missed this one! Was this for me??
I'll answer you question. Let me try n explain....
When talking intruders in CIv3 Well, if the AI Civ's gots a strong army and they have to pass through you in order to reach that objective, they will do it. Its up to you to say "Halt! put up your dukes!" or cower in the corner and let them pass cuz you know they will stomp your ass if confronted
If there intention is to stomp someone else, as long as you don't get in there way (try to turf) they will leave you alone.Thats the brakes in real life man. If their small, kick their puny ass out. If they declare war its cuz their tough enough not to be pushed around so you better recognize who your dealing with first. Also ,You should be following them to see what the fuss is about! Its a great time to join sides and join their march to advance your borders or, mybe to prevent these guys from growing any bigger you join his intended target to fight them off. Ether way, a solder dosn't march around aimless so you take a hint man. If its a worker, by all means let him build roads for you! thats real to. Americans are in my country taking my construction jobs all the time but when I see them flossing their tanks up and down the great white North I get worried, you dig?
In CIv4 you could cage a powerful civ by not signing open borders with him (no unit may enter without declaring war automatic)IN other words, If your in the middle and he wants to take out a civ for a resource it needs on the other side of you, you can block him from it!! Yes and later when you've built up enough forces, take whatever you seperated from him for yourself!. -MEGA EXPLIOT!For some reason even though he may be big enough to plow you down, as long as your the same religeon and have some trade going, hes content to be held at bay on your demand. Believe me CIv4 is far from perfect as well. The fact a civ has to declare war with you, his friend and place to ditch his extras resources on, just to reach another country to crush for a resource he's in desprate need of for is way worse then the facts of life you complain is a expliot. Think about it, by the time he fights you off he can't even complete his original objective
So I guess its the brown nosing in insignifigant areas that can snub out the drive for war against you in justified areas (resource blocking)are what need to be adressed come new X pak- Cool! ended on topic!
I'll answer you question. Let me try n explain....
When talking intruders in CIv3 Well, if the AI Civ's gots a strong army and they have to pass through you in order to reach that objective, they will do it. Its up to you to say "Halt! put up your dukes!" or cower in the corner and let them pass cuz you know they will stomp your ass if confronted
If there intention is to stomp someone else, as long as you don't get in there way (try to turf) they will leave you alone.Thats the brakes in real life man. If their small, kick their puny ass out. If they declare war its cuz their tough enough not to be pushed around so you better recognize who your dealing with first. Also ,You should be following them to see what the fuss is about! Its a great time to join sides and join their march to advance your borders or, mybe to prevent these guys from growing any bigger you join his intended target to fight them off. Ether way, a solder dosn't march around aimless so you take a hint man. If its a worker, by all means let him build roads for you! thats real to. Americans are in my country taking my construction jobs all the time but when I see them flossing their tanks up and down the great white North I get worried, you dig?
In CIv4 you could cage a powerful civ by not signing open borders with him (no unit may enter without declaring war automatic)IN other words, If your in the middle and he wants to take out a civ for a resource it needs on the other side of you, you can block him from it!! Yes and later when you've built up enough forces, take whatever you seperated from him for yourself!. -MEGA EXPLIOT!For some reason even though he may be big enough to plow you down, as long as your the same religeon and have some trade going, hes content to be held at bay on your demand. Believe me CIv4 is far from perfect as well. The fact a civ has to declare war with you, his friend and place to ditch his extras resources on, just to reach another country to crush for a resource he's in desprate need of for is way worse then the facts of life you complain is a expliot. Think about it, by the time he fights you off he can't even complete his original objective
So I guess its the brown nosing in insignifigant areas that can snub out the drive for war against you in justified areas (resource blocking)are what need to be adressed come new X pak- Cool! ended on topic!
grumbler
Prince
I don't see the difference. In Civ3, enemy civs walk through your land and you have to declare war to get them out, i.e. you make the decision to go to war.
In CIV, they will ask for open borders, if you decline, they will go to war to get through. Effectively, you're still making the decision to go to war for them wanting to go through your lands.
In CIV, they will ask for open borders, if you decline, they will go to war to get through. Effectively, you're still making the decision to go to war for them wanting to go through your lands.
yep, and they get the demerit for the war, not you
Really? Cuz thats the whole point Im making. It see the expliot in that they will not go to war and will stay put if you have made some attempt to get along (I said brown nose). You can get many bonuses in your relations that seem to quell their desire to go to war with you to get to what they desperatly need. Having open borders is only one small factor in the dipomacy practice.
Have the same religeon? it makes you best of buddies but now imagine having another +1 from any department on top of this and you see its most likly they won't strike you though theoretically, they could wipe the smirk right of your face if they wanted to get where they needed to go. This is what IMO, strengtens the invisable wall. Its the + relations in all the other departments.
Besides, just cuz you don't want a guys army ripping through your land to take out a area of your future or current interest dosn't mean you can't still be friends! lol (Imagine USA giving open borders to Mexico for a invasion of Canada!. OK imagine if USA said NO instead and Mexico declared war on both of em. Mexico may be able to wipe out Canada (joke) but not so with America. AMerica has profitable ventures with their enemy that said. If mexico brings a strong army to USA without consent then In CIv3, its Americas choice to decide if the friendship with CAnada is worth risking its own empire by confronting and turfing out these intruders. Or is it better to expand their empire by taking a peice of canada with Mexicos help
Yes In CIv3 Mexico will bow down to AMerica in a real world setup and leave. but in CIv land, if MExico was a stronger nation they may decide to fight this new obstical in ther path to much needed resource. They didn't want to but have been given no other choice
These examples may be invitng more knowledged world event speakers to blow smoke and cloud the issue in game but heres another one. Saudi's have givien the right of passage to AMerican for use of its water. America didn't have to declare war openly to get that access. Americas power told The Saudi's it was in their best interest to comply(this supports CIv3 setup)I mean would Amercia have declared war on any country that said no to the land access to Iraq?(if so this would support CIv4 setup)
Fixes: How bout if you can't trade with a civ unless you open your borders to their weopons of war. I know it makes little sence in terms of real world but, that would make me at least see the benifit to dropping the wall for extra revenues from trade and mybe a resource I need from them thats not available elsewhere. As is I can still trade with a Civ while denying them the abilty to expand by driving their tanks around my country correct? (not 100% sure but is this already in use ini Warlords? its been some months since Ive played CIV last)
grumbler
Prince
Huh? So the US needed access to Saudi territory. The US asked the Saudis for it and the Saudis decided it would be best to grant it. Sounds to me more like CIV's model, actually.
Under Civ3's rules, the US would have moved in without asking the Saudis first. While one could say that the final result is the same under both models, CIV's IMO better replicates real-world diplomacy in this area.
Quagga
Former Dictator
It should go to the civ with the largest population in the city. Only go to the Barbarians if there were no other cultural influences on the city (i.e., 100% yours prior to abandonment).
Huh? So the US needed access to Saudi territory. The US asked the Saudis for it and the Saudis decided it would be best to grant it. Sounds to me more like CIV's model, actually.
Under Civ3's rules, the US would have moved in without asking the Saudis first. While one could say that the final result is the same under both models, CIV's IMO better replicates real-world diplomacy in this area.
What Im saying is America' prented the Saudis from doing anything even if they wanted to. In CIv4 they could have put up a imaginary wall by keeping diplo high in all areas but open borders. America would not have been able to get in Iraq in CIv4 but in CIv3 they would have waded in with show of military might suggestion what might be coming to those who oppose them and were reluctently let in
Seeing most would avoid the issue for what comes easier or stands out more, I predicted right before you quoted me, it would be better not to include any real life examples.
They are to easy to manulipulate to anyones persective. You did not do this but pointed politly to where I may have got caught up in a conflicting statment.
Someone said specificly, "no access given to a Civ means he will declare war on you to get it" I think I did a decent job by showing how this never held true for a powerful Civ like American but I left lots of room for other examples to rip this apart. Ill erase those refrences as they don't add much to the point Ive already strenghtened over three posts using in game refrences and pictures (check back a page)
Again without the Mexico, Canada, US , Saudi crap, the focus is the building of a wall with brown nosing in insignificant areas of diplomacy to elimate the drive for war against you thats justified and is an obvious expliot that lets you pertake resource blocking an no cost.
I know saying sorry or admitting your wrong is a sign of weakness but thats no concern, I'll risk it anyway for confusing you when you took the time to read my opinion.
Take care n' happy civving
T.A
Actually, I figure you should be able to take a city (reduces population by 1), then pull out again and abandon it, then take it again, etc -- a slow razing of the city.
Or even have a method so that your units can stay in a barbarian city: every turn, each empire unit in a barbarian city reduces the cities population by 1, gives you the option to occupy it, and gives you gold from pillaging it.
BetterAI with aggressive on will go to war with you if it thinks it is important, even if they are pleased.
Only "friendly" relations can save you from war: and to get a nation to friendly, you have to be really good friends. Long peace, open borders, lots of trade, lots of high-value tech/gold bribery, lots of helping them during war-time, etc.
Of course, this can vary based off of the AI personality.
Only "friendly" relations can save you from war: and to get a nation to friendly, you have to be really good friends. Long peace, open borders, lots of trade, lots of high-value tech/gold bribery, lots of helping them during war-time, etc.
Of course, this can vary based off of the AI personality.
Ya I agree exept when playin on the majority of aggresive levels with all civs who lack the aggresive trait.
Lacking an open borders agreement is only one small penelty in an sea of options to make friendly relations hold him to your will.
example(can be made bigger by clicking botton right -also check the cool maginify trick! Neat eh! my mouse does that function
ANyway, Im saying the expolit was easy to pull of. The abilty in Civ3 for a Civ to proceed to a war that dosn't invlove you and without your consent is better gameplay IMO.
I know RoP rape is crap, so where do you draw the line but at realism? to sperate those from the GOTM or just highscore and Muli-players. Both are ok but one group encourages expliots and are the ones who complain about CIv3 weakness
I just wish CIv4 fixed up this hole. It would have made for a more invloved game. Its no coincidence Civ3 is still enjoyed by many while the Xpak is on its way. Looking in the archives you see that CIv2 fell silent before Conquest was anounced
Its a simple point of lil importance in the grand scheme but when its called rubish to me, thats the farthest thing you can say from the truth(not referring to your comments)
THanks for bring up a few good points (aggression levels and agressive CIvs to counter this expliot) I may lik;y try these when the Xpak comes out/ Atleast is something other then accusations of me making up the problem as if it never existed at all
DaviddesJ
Deity
The difference is that it's a huge disadvantage to be at war with everyone, all the time, just to keep them from going through your territory. Denying open borders is only a mild disadvantage.
The other difference is that, if you do grant Open Borders, it can't be used for a surprise grab of all of your cities. In Civ3, it could.
Sorry not nickpicking here, just wanted to mention In civ3 only the civs stronger or are equal to you would be ballz enough to declare war in a situation like that so the whole world does not call you out. More importantly.....
Once you find out how big these guys are, you realize none of them realisticaly should be told to cancel their objective to satisfy your puny ass, ) They woulda galloped up and said " join or not but this is the only way to where were headed" Some event has triggered their war with your neighbour it happened suddenly and now its your choice what to do.
If caught off gaurd its most likly you will let them go, sorta like a temp treaty for a limited campaign, when its over their things go back to normal, your all friends.
With Civ4 I beg to ask, Why should they have to clobber you just cuz they can't drive their tanks on your lawn? Why should you be able to lock them out completly?
I say you can go no open borders to keep him out of a north or south land that you seperate him from and plunder it all for yourself on your own good time.
Best of all you deprive him from a resource he needed. I say this wall is built because of an exploit that lets many irrevelevent things please the AI to a point no open borders is by no means a war starter and they will be deined their goal by these expliotive +1's or religion +4's that shouted peace over serios reasons to go to war like resource deprivation commited by nation most cases smaller in comparison. ) )
If a smaller Civ was on its way to help another ally and passed into your land It would scram as told. done
AT least thats what I notice when Im playing. Anyway I'll let this go. This seems like a hard issue to explain here. For some all I ask is next time try it yourself and see if you can lock them out from expanding across your border by keeping all other relations good except open borders. Im not doing a great job of explaing in few words so I'll give it a rest but Thanks to anyone who has been hearing me out or who offers suggestions for this ominous glitch
DaviddesJ
Deity
In Civ3, it's not really an issue for the AIs because they aren't programmed to take advantage of right of passage to attack you. The effect is the same, whether they don't attack you from inside your borders because they aren't programmed to do so, or not allowed to do so. Therefore it's only a problem when it comes to human players.
its my land. if they want to try and go through theyll have to declare war on me first or get open borders or declare war on me. im a sovereign nation and i dont think they have the balls to attack me simply over that.
MarkM
Cow Herder
Thank you for sharing that. you don't know how frustrated and annoyed I have been about the limitations of not consulting your advisers during a demand!
For the record, as I've found a few times now by "accident," you can use the function keys while you have a demand on screen. the only hitch is that once you exit the advisor screen, you automatically are registered as refusing the demand, even if you wanted to accept it
Similar threads
