Who wants tech trading when you canstealaquire techs from other civs through espionage
On a related note, I wonder if spying will have diplomatic penalties when caught.
Is Suzanne supposed to respect you more if you're spying a lot?
Well, since her unique trait is related to spying, I imagine she will respect you more if you have good spies although maybe not if the spying is against her.
Actually it would make some sense the ARC greeting you for having such well trained agents capable of protecting your colony instead of complementing you for stealing techs or sabotaging other colonies. They respect your notable inteligence network, but not the fact that you're using it against others
Well, since her unique trait is related to spying, I imagine she will respect you more if you have good spies although maybe not if the spying is against her.
I don't thing Suzanne is meant to be such a person. She may have some respect for you about that, but I doubt she would actually show it.Actually it would make some sense the ARC greeting you for having such well trained agents capable of protecting your colony instead of complementing you for stealing techs or sabotaging other colonies. They respect your notable inteligence network, but not the fact that you're using it against others
What ?
Yeah okay. Tried playing above king ever ? Cause i doubt it reading that about CIV V BNW.
Is Suzanne supposed to respect you more if you're spying a lot?
Yeah, I can kind of accept tech trading in a futuristic game, but realistically, a tech isn't just the knowledge but also expertise, infrastructure and the ability/training to maintain something. You can't give that away wholesale and suddenly be able to reproduce it.I've always disliked tech trading. I have never liked how it transformed teching in Civ4 to be centered around it and where your choice of techs were no longer about what you need but about what other people do not have.
It's counterintuitive and really inelegant gameplay in my opinion.
I'm happy it was removed in civ5.
With that said though, uber-passive AIs are one of the main complaints that some people have. I guess it's hard to find a balance there - Vanilla had super-aggressive AIs and the world was basically at constant war and BNW probably put it a bit too far in the other direction.
I think you should be able to ask AI to not attack station X, to stop digging for ruins and so on for a cost in diplomatic capital proportional to your status, ie cheaper if friends more expensive if not.
Actually, I think it would harder that you think. We saw in the latest let's play that each civ has different requirements of respect/fear for being an ally. So Elodie might require 9 respect to be your ally whereas hutama might only require 7. Also, an alliance cost diplo capital. Lastly, we also know from the let's plays that each civ will change their respect/fear towards you differently based on their traits. So hutama might respect you if you build trade routes and might lose respect if you build military units. Elodie might like you more if you focus on culture but hate you if you focus too much on science. Brasilia might hate you if you focus on culture but love you more if you focus on military. So pleasing everyone won't be easy.
Backstabbing is part of the game but between allies it shoud only happen when there's an obvious mandatory reason to do it. Like closing in on a victory, or a sudden decision that affects that relationship
I don't miss trading technologies as much as I miss trading maps. Given that the Firaxis lads and lasses are trying to make exploration more central to the game, having the option to clear up some fog of war would make a nice dilemma for the player. Do I show the A.I. my map in exchange for that goody I want (or vice-versa) when I know the A.I. will then beeline toward unexcavated sites that he'll see? Or do I withhold my map and not trade geographic knowledge--but then I might miss out on some unexcavated sites the A.I. scout's spotted?
I think they see it anyway.
Maybe so, we'll see, but I agree with Westwall about it backfiring in some cases. And I still don't understand the practical usefulness and exact workings of having fear and respect. What is the difference in having 10 respect to 10 fear? What are the effects of having 10 respect and -10 (if it goes negative) fear or vice versa? What are the parties responsibilities if in alliance, if any? I need to know, damn it!
Even today I was playing a marathon (with normal speed production) game on Deity (even with Smart AI mod, without it they can't seem to even defend against raging barbarians), after over 90 turns most of the map is settled, but there hasn't been a SINGLE war, not even among AIs, even though they settle their cities over each other (Caesar stuck a city in the 3-tile diameter free space between French and Byzantine cities and nothing happened.. Sure, AIs ask me to go to war with them against somebody else, but when I refuse, they don't have the guts to try it alone. I have 2 poor cities, one on island and one on penninsula, so practically only Casimir wants my land (he's closest AI to me), but even he with his hellish overlord personality didn't initiate any war yet.
Oh well, maybe in next few dozen turns.. or I get my Danish Berzerkers first and start plundering myself..
(civs in game: Danish-Harald (me), Rome, Byzantium-Theodora, Poland, France-Luis, Marocco, Shoshone, Celts, English-Henry 8th, about 17 city states and raging barbarians)
AIs only dare to go to war with you if you have really really low score. Half of above civs have a wee bit higher score than me and still won't dow.
So basically everything stays the same as it was in civ 5? Isn't that how it pretty much worked so far? I get "backsabbed" in civ 5 for pretty much those reasons, either I'm closening in on a victory or sudden changes in relationship, like them demanding me to denounce another friend and me refusing. Or not so sudden, like adopting different ideologies or "building cities too fast" etc., which then worsens the relationship with domino effect, more often than not, resulting in them jumping on the hate bandwagon or something. Which in the end all seem like a bunch of spoiled teenagers having it a go at a serious relationships, all the same. So what's the point?