3.13 BtS patch feature/fix discussion

[liversnatch]

Ok, here's 2 suggestions...

First suggestion: Countries A, B, and C. C has open borders with B. C attacks A, going through and attacking from B territory.

Currently, B takes no diplomatic hit/etc. towards A. It seems unrealistic that B can allow C to use its territory to attack A without B being held in some way accountable.

B should be attackable by A without A declaring war (and without A taking the penalties for declaring on B) - for technically B declared on A when B allowed C to use B's territory to attack A.

This would be a big change in how wars are prosecuted. No longer could countries march blithely through a number of intermediary countries to make attacks.

One thing that really ticks me off is when you have an extremely weak AI neighbor (let's say Mansa for example) that is allowing a stronger civ to use his territory for a highway to attack you, and you open the diplo screen with Mansa to try and force him to stop trading with the guy attacking you -- but you can't even attempt it because "We just don't like you enough"... hey, A-hole, we're not "asking" you to close your borders with him -- we are telling you to close your borders or we are going to stomp a mudhole in you!!!

My suggestion would be a diplomatic option that allows you to threaten the weaker AI civ to close their borders with the other civ. If he knows what's good for him he accepts, and if he is too proud or stubborn to accept then it results in an instant DoW, or the ability to attack enemy units inside his cultural territory that are hanging out next to your border safely inside the little toad's borders where you can't touch them.

 

[Welnic]

The changes are great...

Just 3 observasions

.....

Can no longer make a colony on a continent with an existing colony. Liberate cities instead.

Why?

I think that this is the way it actually is now. But now it looks like you can make another colony, but when you try the cities just get liberated to the one you already have. So the change is that now it lets you know that upfront.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Ok, here's 2 suggestions...

First suggestion: Countries A, B, and C. C has open borders with B. C attacks A, going through and attacking from B territory.

Currently, B takes no diplomatic hit/etc. towards A. It seems unrealistic that B can allow C to use its territory to attack A without B being held in some way accountable.

What annoys me is that a civ I am at war with can attack my units on territory belonging to a third civ which has an Open Borders agreement with both of us. It's silly and frustrating. On one occasion a Great Merchant I had was killed that way.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Don't forget the Swedes. They allowed german troops to transit during the Norwegian campaign in 1940.

No. They allowed German troops to transit in 1941-43, that is to say *after* Norway had capitulated. The Swedish government gave in to the German demands to transport troops going back to Germany for R & R, and returning, out of fear that Germany would otherwise invade Sweden. When Germany was no longer in a position to make that kind of demands after Stalingrad, the transport permission was revoked. The agreement to let German troops travel to and from Norway on Swedish railways (to evade the risk of British submarines in the North Sea) is comparable to the refusal of the Norwegian government to mobilize troops in 1940, when they were warned that a German invasion was imminent, because they were afraid of annoying Germany by such a "provocative" act. Little countries do all kinds of things in the hope of staying out of trouble when the big elephants are dancing.

 

[Inspector Javert]

They need to add the "Kill all spies" feature promised in the manual, and they should do something, ANYTHING about the stack's of doom.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Oh and replace penalty with a diplomatic one for defying resolutions, and if the resolution gets enough votes to pass those who choose not to defy it should be bound by it.

You should have the ability to "red out" some of your resources so the AI can't bug you for it. (put a limit on how many you can do that to of course).

Spies should be able to use "suitcase nukes".

 

[eris]

Nevermind, I was thinking of this:

Cities no longer auto-liberate on conquest except from a vassal to a master

I just ran into this situation in a game. I didn't understand the patch change entry before. Now I do. My vassal had a city sitting on the only aluminum on the continent. I was puzzled what to do about that. For other reasons (revenge) I attacked Boudica. While I worked on one side of her borders, she went after my vassal and took the aluminum city. "Aha!" says I, "a chance to take the aluminum." But no, that is not how it worked. I took the city and it automatically went to my vassal!! I will be glad this will be changed and I will get the chance to decide whether to be greedy or generous.

 

[yatta77]

I'd like to be able to cancel a city's production again. (Or change it to null, whatever you prefer to call it.)

I always play marathon, and it's quite annoying when I have multiple large cities and have to build workers or something and kill them every time one gets finished because I don't have anything I need to build and don't have wealth/research yet.

Build a wonder and never finish it. When someone else does you get 1 gold every hammer.

 

[Fanatic Demon]

Any news where the Patch can be download on monday the 7th of october when they realease the 3.13 patch?

 

[Todd Hawks]

What makes you think they will release it on Monday? Not to mention that Monday is the 8th.

 

[Loopy]

Once released, patch will likely be available both at fansites like here and 'poly. It'll probably be at Firaxis' site on their patch page for Civ BtS, and of course in game under the Advanced menu (or whatever it's called).

 

[UnspokenRequest]

One thing that really ticks me off is when you have an extremely weak AI neighbor (let's say Mansa for example) that is allowing a stronger civ to use his territory for a highway to attack you, and you open the diplo screen with Mansa to try and force him to stop trading with the guy attacking you -- but you can't even attempt it because "We just don't like you enough"... hey, A-hole, we're not "asking" you to close your borders with him -- we are telling you to close your borders or we are going to stomp a mudhole in you!!!

I always thought that open border should be different from open commerce (free trade deals with other civs). I mean, it is not because civ A want to trade with a civ B, that Civ A wants to see Civ B's troops on their territory... These are two different things.
There's "free trade agreements" and there's "right of passage". These two got mixed up together in Civ4...

That is a major modification, but it would address your point.

In the end, you just want the troops to stop using Mansa (or other weak AI)'s territory. That's not the same thing as asking the guy to stop trading with your aggressors...

Stop trading is a much bigger demand than the former. I wish the difference between the two could be added to the game. That is major modification, probably too complex for a patch. Civ5 maybe...

 

[Black_Waltz]

I'm curious at the wording of the Colonial Maintainance being capped to 2x distance. Is that before or after courthouses and such are implimented? Anyone good at math able to give some figures if that was or was not the case? (Maybe with Forbbiden Palace, etc instead?)

 

[Enthralled]

One thing that really ticks me off is when you have an extremely weak AI neighbor (let's say Mansa for example) that is allowing a stronger civ to use his territory for a highway to attack you, and you open the diplo screen with Mansa to try and force him to stop trading with the guy attacking you -- but you can't even attempt it because "We just don't like you enough"... hey, A-hole, we're not "asking" you to close your borders with him -- we are telling you to close your borders or we are going to stomp a mudhole in you!!!

This also drives me crazy. Am I just missing something or is it just flat out impossible to demand things at times?

Does the game really use two caculations when turing an option red? One for when you are trying to ask/trade that uses your diplomatic standing and one that uses your power when demanding? If this is true then the only issue is the poor feedback of the mouse over talking about the diplo reason. That mouse over though always makes me mad though.

I also hate how the AI gets to demand random trade/gifts from you, but I never get any feedback if they do the same thing to each other. I tend to have much worse relations with people in the world because I am always turning down stupid requests, while the AI seems to in get along (in general) with more people.

 

[liversnatch]

I always thought that open border should be different from open commerce (free trade deals with other civs). I mean, it is not because civ A want to trade with a civ B, that Civ A wants to see Civ B's troops on their territory... These are two different things.
There's "free trade agreements" and there's "right of passage". These two got mixed up together in Civ4...

That is a major modification, but it would address your point.

In the end, you just want the troops to stop using Mansa (or other weak AI)'s territory. That's not the same thing as asking the guy to stop trading with your aggressors...

Stop trading is a much bigger demand than the former. I wish the difference between the two could be added to the game. That is major modification, probably too complex for a patch. Civ5 maybe...

The thing that is really annoying to me is that you don't even get the opportunity to make the request to the weaker civ because the option is unnavailable due to the "We just don't like you enough" bullspit... but in the meantime the weaker civ can make idiotic diplomatic "requests" that lower relations with you but you can't even talk to him.

 

[Legal_My_Deagle]

Something I hope they fix: I was just having the best game of my Civ career, and I havent saved for a couple hours when the game gets stuck "Waiting for other Civs"...

Dont suppose there is a work around for this once it happens....? Game is still open, I can't bring myself to close it.

 

[bonafide11]

Legal: I'd recommend loading the most recent auto-save.

 

[Legal_My_Deagle]

Good idea...but now the game keeps freezing at the same point, when I end the turn where I made Monty my Vassal

Known issue, work around?

 

[Wodan]

The patch is out!!

http://firaxis.com/games/game_detail.php?gameid=16&showcon=2

(I don't know if the in-game dl is activated yet, I haven't checked.)

But none of you go there until I finish downloading.

Wodan

 

[DrewBledsoe]

A small change but necessary:- no anti-tank weapons before tech needed to actually build tanks. The requirement can be artillery still, but similarly to pinch promotion not available to units until gunpowder, no building anti tank until someone somewhere has industralism.(that your civ knows of)

I mean:-

Military Advisor: I suggest we build a division of anti-tank units sire.
Constitutional Monarch: What on earth's a tank?
MA: Eeeerrrrmmm, they don't exist yet sire, but we envisage that one day they will be great armoured vehicles with a huge gun mounted on them.
CM: Pulled by a dozen horses?
MA: On no sire, they will be self propelled, powered by that sticky black stuff we yet have no use for.
CM: Your making this up as you go along aren't you...
MA: Oh know sire.
CM: Alright then, build several divisions of these "anti-tank" weapons, plus 3 divisions of "anti-flying pink elephant" weapons, and on your way out....
MA: Yes sire?
CM: Go and see the guards, Im sure they'd like a word with you......