Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword - Expansion no2!

DaviddesJ said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ya I should have quoted the member who said every time you kick a Civ out they declare war. My response was for him. Your talkin bout rolling the stack o doom and pulling the cheezy trigger on a Rn P agreement.;) I admit that is crap and CIv4 did fix this but at a cost that Im discribing.

Im guesin you did this alot? No ill judgement. The best players did Im guessing. ANy expliot found in CIv3 including RnP rape was a GOTM tactic needed to win and proabaly a MP killer aswell. The whole thing just seemed wrong to me I never used it besides, pulling that sh#t once and your rep was screwed you may have another 20 civs on the map so un;ess there was another expliot to get around this, It was fixed it a way
Its that dam invisable sheild Im still tryin to have disproven thats is buggin me. I think making the game ultra agressive is the best way to stop it.

Thanks for the response
later man
 
Thank you TA Jones for officially hijacking this thread-a thread which was SUPPOSED to be for speculation of upcoming features of the CIV4 EXPANSION! Given that this thread no longer lives up to its name, I humbly suggest the moderators change its title to something more appropriate-one in a long line of dull, monotonous "Why I like Civ3 better than Civ4" threads-so that people won't be fooled into thinking this is a rational thread.
As for me, I plan to unsubscribe to this thread as it clearly no longer has anything interesting to say about Beyond the Sword.

Aussie_Lurker.
 
Aussie_Lurker said:
Thank you TA Jones for officially hijacking this thread-a thread which was SUPPOSED to be for speculation of upcoming features of the CIV4 EXPANSION! Given that this thread no longer lives up to its name, I humbly suggest the moderators change its title to something more appropriate-one in a long line of dull, monotonous "Why I like Civ3 better than Civ4" threads-so that people won't be fooled into thinking this is a rational thread.
As for me, I plan to unsubscribe to this thread as it clearly no longer has anything interesting to say about Beyond the Sword.

Aussie_Lurker.
Click to expand...

T.A. Jones is known for this. He should be banned from the Civ IV forum completely because he has rarely ever contributed to a thread in the forum without threadjacking it in this way. But we should all know this by now.
 
Aussie_Lurker said:
Thank you TA Jones for officially hijacking this thread-a thread which was SUPPOSED to be for speculation of upcoming features of the CIV4 EXPANSION! Given that this thread no longer lives up to its name, I humbly suggest the moderators change its title to something more appropriate-one in a long line of dull, monotonous "Why I like Civ3 better than Civ4" threads-so that people won't be fooled into thinking this is a rational thread.
As for me, I plan to unsubscribe to this thread as it clearly no longer has anything interesting to say about Beyond the Sword.

Aussie_Lurker.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's not the first time TA Jones has done this. If he doesn't like Civ4 so much, then stay the hell out.
 
Yakk said:
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.
Click to expand...

I know it's another can of worms, but am I the only one who really detests this kind of "diplomacy" still? I know Civ III diplomacy had a lot to be desired, but is Civ IV really much better? The relationship between the player (and ai) if they wish to get on, has to be one of the player as a parent, and an ai as a best a sulky teenager (more like a terrible two yr old in many cases).

Give me this and I'll like you, give it to me now! I want that cake you're eating that piece you're about to put in your mouth now! Ok,ok, but since we were nice to you, can we have a piece of your chocolate? No it's mine, all mine!

(Sorry about that I feel better now) :)

Anyways, surely diplomacy should be about give and take (which it isn't in Civ IV at the moment...what's wrong with, for example, "here you go Cyrus, you're our friend so take Civil Service as a gift", and then some time later "here you go Drew, here's Engineering, no strings attached, to repay your gift", or even "we wish to improve relations, so take these fish as a gift"...or more realistically "Drew we really need your help to defend against the Aztecs unprovoked attack, but realise we ourselves are not on the best terms, therefore we wouldn't possibly expect you to join in for nothing, so here's blah and blurg to compensate you" (as if...)

As I said I hate the one way traffic that's classed as diplomacy...

And if anyone says anything about exploits, I'll scweam and scweam till my face turns blue....

Btw I'm looking forward to the expansion, but since we are all just still guessing, we'll just have to wait and see ;)
 
I just love how ppl post on a game they apparently don't play... I'm looking at you Civ IIIers!

FFS. unsubscribing as well.
 
I dunno, i like civ4 and civ3, and T.A. Jones makes some good points.

The diplomacy system in civ4 needs work IMO.
 
About Diplomacy, I Don't mind about the demands much, if their power score is higher then mine, "Give us this or we'll attack you in the future" but when it comes to ask for War help and Trade Embragoes, they ask for it from us but give us zero compensation like gold or techs etc.. but when we ask for help they, they won't accept it for nothing unless their Friendly with us.

I'd personally would like Causious and Pleased AIs, whenever they ask us to join a war or trade embrago to compensate us, I personally don't mind 90% of the time if a Friendly AI asks me to join a war or stop trading with an enemy for nothing, it's the Pleased or less AIs that annoy me.

And you should make it if a AI demands or We Demand something from an Opponent eg - tech or resources, and they deliver but we attack them within 10 turns, all the other AIs will give you -2 Diplomatic point for being unhonourable or something alot the lines.
 
kniteowl said:
About Diplomacy, I Don't mind about the demands much, if their power score is higher then mine, "Give us this or we'll attack you in the future" but when it comes to ask for War help and Trade Embragoes, they ask for it from us but give us zero compensation like gold or techs etc.. but when we ask for help they, they won't accept it for nothing unless their Friendly with us.

I'd personally would like Causious and Pleased AIs, whenever they ask us to join a war or trade embrago to compensate us, I personally don't mind 90% of the time if a Friendly AI asks me to join a war or stop trading with an enemy for nothing, it's the Pleased or less AIs that annoy me.

And you should make it if a AI demands or We Demand something from an Opponent eg - tech or resources, and they deliver but we attack them within 10 turns, all the other AIs will give you -2 Diplomatic point for being unhonourable or something alot the lines.
Click to expand...

Have to agree with most of that. I also have no probs with demands (as in threat based)...just well, I'd like more complexity in the diplomacy.

(A slightly extreme example):- lets say its a huge watery map, and most civs are crying out for more land, and you've beelined to Astronomy and have boat loads of settlers ready to go. Now almost immediately you'll get begging requests, but since your whole strategy for god knows how many turns has been based on getting this tech v early, there's absolutely no way you're giving it away, nor any possible way you're even trading it.
Not as CIV works atm. So you will immediately take diplo hits with all and sundry.
Now the ai knows when a tech is a monopoly tech, so lets say you could agree to share it with a friendly ai (for other techs plus ++, as it should have a heavy weighting being a monopoly tech ) plus a proviso of not trading that tech for say 30 turns and a hefty positive modifier with the sharing civ....(N.B. I'm not expecting the ai to ever be intelligent enough to realise how important that tech is on this type of map)
In this way, you could still possibly keep sensible diplomatic relations, as things stand, you're in a no win situation, as give Astronomy to even one civ in that situation, and the tech will filter through to all and sundry, (and with resultant trades) put you now miles behind in tech as well as seing all the new lands you scouted out quickly gobbled up by ai settlers. Definitly no win.

The same goes for when you get asked to "gift"a tech to a cautious or annoyed civ, who often has 4 or 5 redlined techs that you don't. Again damned if you do, damned if you don't......It's just too simplistic a model as things stands (well for my tastes anyways).

For any doubters, I do love playing Civ Iv, never play Civ III anymore, but thats not to say there aren't things I'd like to see change in CIV Iv, as in the diplomacy.

With another exp pack coming out just wanted to get those views of my chest (isn't this thread vaguely sposed to be about things we might hope to see in the exp?)....

Enough from me ;)
 
DrewBledsoe said:
Have to agree with most of that. I also have no probs with demands (as in threat based)...just well, I'd like more complexity in the diplomacy.

(A slightly extreme example):- lets say its a huge watery map, and most civs are crying out for more land, and you've beelined to Astronomy and have boat loads of settlers ready to go. Now almost immediately you'll get begging requests, but since your whole strategy for god knows how many turns has been based on getting this tech v early, there's absolutely no way you're giving it away, nor any possible way you're even trading it.
Not as CIV works atm. So you will immediately take diplo hits with all and sundry.
Now the ai knows when a tech is a monopoly tech, so lets say you could agree to share it with a friendly ai (for other techs plus ++, as it should have a heavy weighting being a monopoly tech ) plus a proviso of not trading that tech for say 30 turns and a hefty positive modifier with the sharing civ....(N.B. I'm not expecting the ai to ever be intelligent enough to realise how important that tech is on this type of map)
In this way, you could still possibly keep sensible diplomatic relations, as things stand, you're in a no win situation, as give Astronomy to even one civ in that situation, and the tech will filter through to all and sundry, (and with resultant trades) put you now miles behind in tech as well as seing all the new lands you scouted out quickly gobbled up by ai settlers. Definitly no win.

The same goes for when you get asked to "gift"a tech to a cautious or annoyed civ, who often has 4 or 5 redlined techs that you don't. Again damned if you do, damned if you don't......It's just too simplistic a model as things stands (well for my tastes anyways).

For any doubters, I do love playing Civ Iv, never play Civ III anymore, but thats not to say there aren't things I'd like to see change in CIV Iv, as in the diplomacy.

With another exp pack coming out just wanted to get those views of my chest (isn't this thread vaguely sposed to be about things we might hope to see in the exp?)....

Enough from me ;)
Click to expand...

Good point, a "no trading monpoly tech option"... meaning the AI cannot trade this tech for 30 turns (minus the number of turns given in gold or cost of extra tech in trade) or third PArty AI researches it on their own.

so my idea is, lets say for example the AI has a 1000Gold in the treasury their willing to trade away, from their point of veiw, they'd want profit from that monoploy tech ASAP, so they'll pay you extra to Gold/Techs to allow them to trade that tech away. Lets make it 1 turn is equal to 100 gold/breakers, so now it'll only take 20 turns before the tech is no longer a monopoly tech.

When should the monopoly tech function be avaliable with which tech? Economics? That Might be too late with your Astronomy Example... Well maybe Banking allows the Monoploy Trading option.

they should also change/increase the Diplomatic modifier of "you shared a technological discovery with us." maybe increase it to +4, 4 monoploy techs is equal to +4 Dipolmacy points
 
kniteowl said:
Good point, a "no trading monpoly tech option"... meaning the AI cannot trade this tech for 30 turns (minus the number of turns given in gold or cost of extra tech in trade) or third PArty AI researches it on their own.

so my idea is, lets say for example the AI has a 1000Gold in the treasury their willing to trade away, from their point of veiw, they'd want profit from that monoploy tech ASAP, so they'll pay you extra to Gold/Techs to allow them to trade that tech away. Lets make it 1 turn is equal to 100 gold/breakers, so now it'll only take 20 turns before the tech is no longer a monopoly tech.

When should the monopoly tech function be avaliable with which tech? Economics? That Might be too late with your Astronomy Example... Well maybe Banking allows the Monoploy Trading option.

they should also change/increase the Diplomatic modifier of "you shared a technological discovery with us." maybe increase it to +4, 4 monoploy techs is equal to +4 Dipolmacy points
Click to expand...

Maybe paper? (or even Civil Service granting Bureacracy -just thinking of a kind of "official" document ;) ), and it seems about right in game terms....

I like your gold / beakers idea too...........hey we just made diplomacy more interesting :)

I'm sure there are lots of others with ideas out there, and yes I'm sure they could have an exploit attached (Agh!, he said the word. What the? No not "the". "Exploit". Aggggh! he said it again) but those could be worked upon.
 
DrewBledsoe said:
Maybe paper? (or even Civil Service granting Bureacracy -just thinking of a kind of "official" document ;) ), and it seems about right in game terms....

I like your gold / beakers idea too...........hey we just made diplomacy more interesting :)

I'm sure there are lots of others with ideas out there, and yes I'm sure they could have an exploit attached (Agh!, he said the word. What the? No not "the". "Exploit". Aggggh! he said it again) but those could be worked upon.
Click to expand...

Well if you want it to be available as soon as possible, you could do it with Codes of Law for "Contracts".

Can you think of an exploit for this? there's bound to be an exploit, thats why the makers create patches to fix them.

Well I guess the exploit is you can trade away the tech before the AI opponent has a chance to profit from like let say 1 turn before the tech monopoly agreement expires.

My fix would be neither partner of the monopoly agreement can trade the tech in question until the agreement expires BUT...

...The Entity that originally discovers the technology can enter into another tech monopoly agreement only if the agreement expires at the same time as the first agreement.

Assume Civ A is Partner of first Agreement and Civ B is the Partner of the 2nd agreement.

If the 2nd Agreement made to Civ B also includes extra payments (Eg - gold/techs) then the Expiration date of the Agreement of both the first agreement by Civ A and and 2nd agreement by Civ B will Both expire at a sooner date (Depending how much was paid to you)

No more then 50% of all KNOWN Civs can acquire a monopoly tech, it's no longer consider a monopoly tech once more then 50% of all Civs know the Tech.

It's so you can't go tech whoring like Mansa Mansa using the Monopoly Tech agreement denying the tech to the rest of the world before they can profit from it.

The Monopoly trade agreement also expires for EVERYONE in the agreement if a partner declares War on the Civ that Discovered the tech. (to make sure the Civ your trading to is friendly/Pleased and not a backstabber)
 
OK, this is a LONG thread so its probably already been answered...but will the Warlords features be included in this pack? E.g. the warlord unit, new wonders (UoS)
 
TylerD said:
OK, this is a LONG thread so its probably already been answered...but will the Warlords features be included in this pack? E.g. the warlord unit, new wonders (UoS)
Click to expand...

Without a doubt, yes
 
TylerD said:
OK, this is a LONG thread so its probably already been answered...but will the Warlords features be included in this pack? E.g. the warlord unit, new wonders (UoS)
Click to expand...

I don't think they will include everything (e.g. new civs) in BtS if someone doesn't have Warlords - they still want people to buy Warlords, even if it is in the bargain bin.

What I hope they will do is to make expansions work like in games like Sims2, where a new expansion simply adds a new layer of features to whatever you have installed on your computer (so if you have both Warlords and BtS, this will be a different game than if you had only BtS).

I can't imagine both expansions being mutually exclusive - this would be unacceptable.
 
Martinus said:
I don't think they will include everything (e.g. new civs) in BtS if someone doesn't have Warlords - they still want people to buy Warlords, even if it is in the bargain bin.

What I hope they will do is to make expansions work like in games like Sims2, where a new expansion simply adds a new layer of features to whatever you have installed on your computer (so if you have both Warlords and BtS, this will be a different game than if you had only BtS).

I can't imagine both expansions being mutually exclusive - this would be unacceptable.
Click to expand...

If they follow previous versions of CIV then everything in the new exp, will include patches, and warlords too
 
Martinus said:
I don't think they will include everything (e.g. new civs) in BtS if someone doesn't have Warlords - they still want people to buy Warlords, even if it is in the bargain bin.

What I hope they will do is to make expansions work like in games like Sims2, where a new expansion simply adds a new layer of features to whatever you have installed on your computer (so if you have both Warlords and BtS, this will be a different game than if you had only BtS).

I can't imagine both expansions being mutually exclusive - this would be unacceptable.
Click to expand...

This is my hope and expectation too.
 
yeah i think it will have everything from warlords, civs units ect.. other than the scenarios. If not, you should be able to play them both at the same time. Like Martinus said i just cant see them having it so you cant play warlards and BtL at the same time. But all this is just speculation no one knows for sure yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
[BTS] Ethnically Diverse Units MOD Beyond the Sword Edition
Replies
3
Views
599
Plains-Cow
Plains-Cow
D
Ukraine as playable civilization in Realism Invictus (instruction how to make it playable)
Replies
0
Views
157
Delagardi
D
kiwitt
[BTS] The Road to War - FINAL Edition [1.09]
Replies
9
Views
1K
kiwitt
kiwitt
S
[MODCOMP] Nimoy Tech BTS Voicepack
Replies
10
Views
1K
shockeroo
S
T
Civilization: Recollection
Replies
11
Views
914
GPR
GPR
Back
Top Bottom