vilemerchant
Prince
Your keyboard doesn't have a stupid 'F-Lock' key like mine does it? After a reboot it defaults to locked and I have to press it before any F keys will work.
Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword - Expansion no2!
- Thread starter JamieCiv4Files
- Start date
Your keyboard doesn't have a stupid 'F-Lock' key like mine does it? After a reboot it defaults to locked and I have to press it before any F keys will work.
KMadCandy
giggling permanoob
it's only during demands that it comes up. so i figured it was on purpose, that the game was designed to not let me consult during the demands. boy was i happy to find out it's not
here's how happy *giggle*, and a sign that at least some others have the same issue. i'd shared it on HoF first after someone said it was one of his peeves, that if X demands you "stop trading with the vile English" and you've chosen two English civs in the game, you can't tell which ones he thinks are vile, but he was sure that was by design.anyway, here's hoping the new apos-thingie gives us even more diplo things to complicate life! oh wait...
Hmm.. I just tested and they work for me...
Edit: I just tested during normal trade sessions.. not demands.. doubt i have any save lieing around that I can test a demand on..
kristopherb
Protective/Charismatic
can amoderator please clean the hitler stuff up.
i like the way after 3 days of it being annouced we have already comeup with a jargon CIV4 BTS
i like the way after 3 days of it being annouced we have already comeup with a jargon CIV4 BTS
the Intricacy
Khaaaaaaaaaan!
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2006
- Messages
- 84
next expansion should be civ IV: For the Win!
sylvanllewelyn
Perma-newb
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2006
- Messages
- 1,707
I was really hoping they would have two levels of open borders: open borders, and military access. That way you could open your borders to religion and commerce, but military access would mean if your ally attacked someone else, they would hate you for letting them sit their stealth fighters in. It also solves the problem of units teleporting out of cultural boundaries: as in, if you let someone in with military access, you run the risk of backstab. Of course, this could easily be balanced with no AI's EVER letting you have military access again should you ever pull off this backstab move, unless you're a vassal.
DaviddesJ
Deity
Are you serious? You must never have played Civ3. In Civ3, you could enter your military units into an opponent's territory, then declare war. If you did this, no other AI would ever trust you again. That definitely did not "balance" this tactic out. It was overwhelmingly powerful and one of the major flaws in the game.
Civ3 was more real. Im playing a map middle ages with a powerful country to the south. They want to take out my neighbour to the north and im in the way. In real life these guys would walk through me to get there and in civ3 thats what there allowed to do. OK a human can expliot the RP but they can also reload evey time they lose a battle. Point is its not fun, realism is.
I give my northern neighbour a fighten chance by drastically slowing the southern powerhouse's advance. However in the end they will not be stopped by a magic wall.
In Civ4 its a joke! I can say to him You gettin to powerful and thats my tradin patner so, "no you will not pass!" I don't care if you got 200 units pointed at me and can wipe us both of the map!, the sign says no RP with me your stuck there buddy.
A confident army this size would march through a country towards his intended campaign pull up to his city walls and if the country he was tresspassing against wasn't intrested in joining then they had no choice but sit and cower while they marched on through, otherwise stand up and fight the invaders. Civ3 gives you this choice but stops at the point of locking all people out with a imaginary wall you can use when you want to stop another civ from growing to large or protect a interest in trading revenue that exists with his intended target
Its realy annoying, more so then the tempation to rape the AI on a Civ3 RP anyway
DaviddesJ
Deity
I don't want to argue about whether it's more real. I only claim that it dramatically unbalanced the game, i.e., setting up your primary target for the inevitable open borders stab/betrayal was the dominant conquest strategy in Civ3.
Huh? What's "RP"? You can't stop him from going through your territory. He can just declare war on you.
He wants to take out my neighbour residing above me, but can't get past me to do so, so I guess your right he has to attack both of us. ...IN civ4 that is.
In CIv3 he uses his power to push me out the way( I cant touch tackle him) and take what he wants (resource probably) without biting off more then he has to.
What you suggest is not the way it plays out realisticly" there ain't no magic wall to keep them at bay. (so I explained the realism example part to support )
ANyway heres the example Im talkin about
I dont want those pink guys at the bottom to get any bigger but got no choice cuz its not Civ4 with the magic force feild to put up. Power talks in Civ3 I like that.
In CIv4 they woudn't attack me if I said some of the right things, or had the same religeon. Even if they had a major itch to out those guys that only I stand in the way of, They will not attack me. They will go without that resource when they have the army to take it if they please.
In CIv4 I will get to kill that Civ and takes its resource instead of having to take on a giant monster coming from both sides.
DaviddesJ
Deity
There's no magic wall in Civ4 either. In Civ4, anyone can enter your territory at any time. If you deny them Open Borders, then the action of entering your territory is a declaration of war. This is perfectly reasonable.
No its not really that reasonable man. in Civ4 they have to war with you to war with them. Tell me how this is reasonable? You ain't got any beef with him. In fact you may have profitable ventures together that they have to now sacrifice. You may be even be almost as strong as them while their intended target may be quite weak, an attractive target in otherwords.
Why should they have to lose all their troops fighting someone who has nothing to do with their objective? more so, will make their objective not even possible!
. Its the other guy whos got something he needs. Why should you be dragged into a war? In CIv3 he will march on in. go ahead, turf them all out but guess what? there a chance he says "well were all here, mind as well wipe clean your clocks while where in the neighbourhood".
THis kind of stuff is tense man. You can sign the RP and side on with him, giving them easy access and you fast dibs easy land or you can stall em to your neighbours benifit and fight on their side. You watch and you wait and sometimes you sit and sometimes you strike, sometimes they stike first. In civ4 you put up the magic force feild and thats that. Competions objective has been thwarted with no repercussions.
CIv3 rewards non cheasy with greater strategy. Its the fact you have the choice to be cheasy that Civ4 players are quick to jump on.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Thats rubbish Jonesy. If there is someone to your North that someone to your South wants to make war with, then you CAN sign an Open Border agreement with the Southern nation in Civ4. Then they can just tramp through your nation to attack your northern neighbours without you getting involved. I should know because I have done it several times myself. What civ 4 prevents, however, is the rules-raping situation of signing an RoP, moving a huge stack right up to someone's cities, then declaring war on them & catching that city in pretty much the same turn. Now THAT is cheesy. It is also, might I add, completely off the topic of this thread.
If you want to discuss the expansion, then please do so, if you simply want to b***h about how much better you liked Civ3, then may I suggest you start a seperate thread?
Aussie_Lurker.
If you want to discuss the expansion, then please do so, if you simply want to b***h about how much better you liked Civ3, then may I suggest you start a seperate thread?
Aussie_Lurker.
Wow slow down man. I said (and the other guy got this) I want to protect the northen guys to slow the Southern Civ's advancement,NOT AID THEM!!! Also, I had to stop em from obtaing key resources, extra culture output, the point is I can't do this without a price unless Im playing Civ4.
CIv4 soloution? pull up the invisable sheild simple. In civ3, power talks and they march right past you to call your bluff or really, cuz they have no beef with you!
Im disapointed Aussie why so quick to anger?. I though your way above such tactics of OT trash talk that relates to nothing I even said. I named a true defect in Civ4. Does it really matter what game I enjoy? The facts still remain.
btw I wasn't the one OT'ing I was replying to a Civ3 comment.
DaviddesJ
Deity
If you didn't have "any beef with him", why are you denying him permission to move through your territory to engage with his enemy?
It's hard for me to imagine any diplomatic system in which moving your troops into a neighboring country, when permission to do that has been expressly denied, is not a hostile act.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
This is my point. There is actually no difference between RofP & Open Borders except the removal of the exploit I mentioned. Trust me, if the guy in the South is soooo powerful, then you are gonna give in to his DEMAND for Open Borders-no matter how much you personally might want to slow him down. You could refuse an RofP agreement in Civ3 too-didn't make it a smart thing to do.
Actually, in Civ4 you are BETTER OFF signing an open border agreement to save your own @$$. With the diplo bonus & penalty system, an offer of Open Borders to your Southern neighbour will improve relations with him, which makes him easier to deal with later in the game. In Civ3, diplomatic relations were largely random.
Now, can we PLEASE get back to discussing the expansion.
Aussie_Lurker.
Actually, in Civ4 you are BETTER OFF signing an open border agreement to save your own @$$. With the diplo bonus & penalty system, an offer of Open Borders to your Southern neighbour will improve relations with him, which makes him easier to deal with later in the game. In Civ3, diplomatic relations were largely random.
Now, can we PLEASE get back to discussing the expansion.
Aussie_Lurker.
OK, so your saying because we havn't sighned a RP we 'do' have beef
Nothing has been denied my friend. If it were, that meant I asked them to leave in such case Id probably be at war cuz I got in their way. They don't want to take loses taking me out if It I can be avoided.
I can't touch him and if you read what I said you'd no why.(have you checked the sceenie?)
In CIv4 I put up the imaginary wall, there done. Still, that dosn't mean he's my enemy does it? How many points is that deducted again?.
Even though this nation is size enough to tear through me it can't according to CIv4. Civ4 says It will be denied its land expansion cuz Imy invisable sheild says so.
In Civ3 his stacks speak volumes over what I preffer and I have no choice but to relent to his wishs or choose another path of witch none includes hiding them behind a wall thats unreal
Cross: Bello hey Im responding I can't leave em hangin. Besides, not sure how Aussies right bout anything other then my prefernces and this being gross OT. He wasn't even addressing the point Ive been making. The strange thing these uneeded responses and smoke when the thing I mentioned was small but simple fact. (not really debatable)
Commander Bello
Say No 2 Net Validations
ah, guys... come on!
I think Aussie_Lurker is completely right and furthermore I am absolutely convinced that you are kidnapping this thread.
I think Aussie_Lurker is completely right and furthermore I am absolutely convinced that you are kidnapping this thread.
I agree with Aussie_Lurker. In either game, you can either allow him through or not. Southern Neighbor will probably insist on Right of Passage for faster movement in Civ3, and in Civ4 he can show his strength by putting them all on the border.
Back on topic, I'd like to suggest adding the Abandon City right-click option to Civ4 that C3C has.
Back on topic, I'd like to suggest adding the Abandon City right-click option to Civ4 that C3C has.
I'd like that option too but I can think of one way it could be exploited, lets say your City is Definitely gonna be culture flipped to your opponent, instead of allowing him a size 8 Pop City with Infrastructure already build in. You instead Abandon the City, force him to build a settler to settle there and he has to build his Infrastructure and Grow his Pop the slow way.
Similar threads
