Acts of war?

[Becka]

Hmmmm. My first topice. Hope I don't mess it up. I hope there isn't already a topic like this. If there is, sorry! I didn't mean to!
Anyway, I heard that if another civilization tries to start a city in your borders, that is considered an act of war. Thank heavens, it's about time. I always got so mad when some setteler danced into my territory and started making cities with overlapped with mine. Grrrrrrrrr!

But I was wondering this cluture thing. If a foreign city opts to join your civilization because of your superior culture and you accept, is that an act of war? I saw a new screenscreen shot with an adviser asking whether or not you would accept or reject the city. Will foreign cities only opt to join your civilazation if you are currently at war with them? Has anyone heard about that?


------------------
"You know what I pray for? I pray for the power to change what I can, the inability to accept what I can't, the in incapacity to tell the difference."
-Calvin and Hobbes

 

[ERIKtheRED]

I'm not to sure (read: the following doen't happen) that cities often revolt to join a cultural superior civ, but I think the feature is interesting.

The civ which is losing the city should defitely have the option of declaring war. This would give a reason for the pop up dialogue box, which probably would be avoided otherwise.

I'm strongly against increasing the importance of spies, but this is just the sort of thing that might occur if a top nuclear weapons chap defected: international incident.

------------------
"Consumerism is slavery by goods."
"The police are not here to create disorder. The police are here to PRESERVE disorder."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

 

[WarandPeace]

Originally posted by ERIKtheRED:

The civ which is losing the city should defitely have the option of declaring war. This would give a reason for the pop up dialogue box, which probably would be avoided otherwise.

Hmm, that option you were referring might be a mere farce - an act of indifference for simply presenting the player with a notice and a choice.
Plus I doubt the possibility for Acts of War established on the bases of intentional cultural superiority. If it were so, then culture should be regarded as a form of taboo, as well religion and philosophy acts of hostile engagement.
I believe it's called peaceful assimilation.




------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.ltolstoy.com/photos/thmbs/t1854.gif" border=0>

 

[Becka]

Originally posted by ERIKtheRED:
The civ which is losing the city should defitely have the option of declaring war. This would give a reason for the pop up dialogue box, which probably would be avoided otherwise.

Maybe they gave you the option because you might not like the city's location. I remember one time I was playing CivII (I think) and it said a nearby foreign city (Philidelphia) was envious or something of one of my cities wealth, so they joined my civilization. So from then on, Philidelphia was a German city. <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/mwaha.gif" border=0>
But I wouldn't have accepted the city if I had the choice because the I didn't like the location. (AI's city radius and mine overlapped. I hate then that happens!<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/aargh4.gif" border=0>)
I think that only happened once or twice to me. Did I imagine it all? Was it just some crazy dream?


------------------
"You know what I pray for? I pray for the power to change what I can, the inability to accept what I can't, the in incapacity to tell the difference."
-Calvin and Hobbes

[This message has been edited by Becka (edited August 26, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Becka (edited August 26, 2001).]

 

[G-Man]

Will I be able to ask cities to join me after I already rejected them?

------------------
Mate, this parrot wouldn't "VOOM" if you put 4 million volts through it!
Monty Python

 

[ERIKtheRED]

I hope civ 3 isn't so simple that everyone wants to follow the maximum population rule: "no city radiuses may overlap and thus prevent each of my cities from reaching size 35." I overlap radiuses to catch unused rescources, build canals or sometimes just to occupy a couple of square of unused forest. Real nations don't place cities geometrically to make sure imaginary circles around them don't overlap.

Therefore, it would be stupid to reject a city unless a war might be provoked.

------------------
"Consumerism is slavery by goods."
"The police are not here to create disorder. The police are here to PRESERVE disorder."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

[This message has been edited by ERIKtheRED (edited August 13, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by ERIKtheRED (edited August 13, 2001).]

 

[Graeme the mad]

I think you are right and if you accept a city from a friendly civ they should be able to declare war>break an alliance with you - after all you are helping the rebels in the city - it would be stupid if you just let your cities be taken by a culturally advanced civ.

Btw whoever said that thing about civ 1 and the city joining another civ - I always thought this was when an enemy diplomat bribed your city

------------------
Never underestimate the power of stupid people

 

[Becka]

Originally posted by Graeme the mad:
Btw whoever said that thing about civ 1 and the city joining another civ - I always thought this was when an enemy diplomat bribed your city

I think you're talking about what I said. If so, yeah, you can get an enemy city to join your civ by bribing them with diplomat, (in Civ and Civ2, but I think I was playing Civ2) but when it happened to me, I didn't do anything. I was, however, the most prosporus, wealthy civilization on the planet, and the AI civ was dirt poor.
I just happen to have the Civ2MGE right here by me, so lets see what it says...
I can't find anything! Maybe I was playing CivNet.

Originally posted by G-Man:
Will I be able to ask cities to join me after I already rejected them?

Hmmm. That's a good question. I want to know, too. But I have a feeling the answer is no. But that would be nice. Does anyone know?

------------------
"You know what I pray for? I pray for the power to change what I can, the inability to accept what I can't, the in incapacity to tell the difference."
-Calvin and Hobbes

 

[G-Man]

I hope we'll be able to do this... What's the point of taking over cities with culture (when in order to have a high culture status I'll need to build culture buildings) if you'll then need to waste time & resources defending yourself? It's better to build an army in the first place.

------------------
Mate, this parrot wouldn't "VOOM" if you put 4 million volts through it!
Monty Python

 

[WarandPeace]

Originally posted by ERIKtheRED:
I overlap radiuses to catch unused resources, build canals or sometimes just to occupy a couple of square of unused forest. Real nations don't place cities geometrically to make sure imaginary circles around them don't overlap.

You know there are players who does not play the exact same way as you do. Why would having that option be so bad?

Originally posted by ERIKtheRED:

Therefore, it would be stupid to reject a city unless a war might be provoked.

Why would be it stupid? What if I dont want it for the sake of cosmetics -- I want my cities form a big circle. Thus any city outside my circle that joins automaticly would destory my entire scope.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.ltolstoy.com/photos/thmbs/t1854.gif" border=0>

[This message has been edited by WarandPeace (edited August 13, 2001).]

 

[Vrylakas]

G-Man wrote:
What's the point of taking over cities with culture (when in order to have a high culture status I'll need to build culture buildings) if you'll then need to waste time & resources defending yourself? It's better to build an army in the first place.

The Civ III blurb said there'd be several ways to win a game, so I imagine we'll have to develop multiple strategies to deal with each outcome. Civ II only had two possible ways to win, and most used a combination of both to do so. None of us has played Civ III yet, so we're all still thinking in terms of Civ II strategies & tactics; your concern above may not even be relevant, for all we know.

As for trading cities; I like the idea. When I've launched into wars and brought allies along, I've often thought how great it would be to be able to divide up conquered cities diplomatically, making strategically-convenient borders. Let's face it; whether friend or foe the AI is not that bright and coordination is impossible. I'm sure there'll be some militaristically-viable way to retain conquered or traded cities from other cultures. "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated..."

And I think I read somewhere that accepting a rebel city will indeed be cause for war. Doh! Stil, I'm sure most often it will be worth it, so long as it isn't your cities jumping ship.

And I'm with Becka on celebrating the making of placing foreign cities inside your borders a causus belli - woohoo! I always declare war and destroy them in Civ II when I find 'em.

------------------
*************************
"...über den Bergen sind auch Leute..."

 

[ERIKtheRED]

War and Peace, I'm sorry if you were insulted by my post.

My point was, I am annoyed by the Civ2 engine because it makes folks place cities based on non-overlapping radiuses. If it is important to someone to have a geometrical arrangement, that's fine. The civ 3 engine, however, should encourage cities to be placed in strategic locations rather than the spot where they can fill as many squres without overlap. If this better system is in place, you would always want a city and never concern yourself with whether it conflicts with the densest non-overlapping city arrangement.

The colonies and expanding culture radius features show some implementation of this.

I said it would be stupid to turn down a city except when it would cause a war because I assumed everyone would want a city if city radius overlap wasn' an issue.

------------------
"Consumerism is slavery by goods."
"The police are not here to create disorder. The police are here to PRESERVE disorder."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

 

[growthudemocracy]

Eric and War...i agree with both of you on this. I have a buddy that plays civ like you War, very semetrical in city placement. I play like Eric in that i place my cities semetricaly then go back later on to put in canals and the small towns that take either unused squares or militarly important unused little chunks of land between big 35ers. If i capture a city or purchase a city that over laps or doesn't "maximize" the special squares around it i reduce the city to size 1 build a settler and place the city in a non overlaping spot or one that maximize the squares better. What i need from civ3 is a pop-up box when i do accept a city capture a city or buy a city that gives the option to (if say the city is below say 7) "burn down" or completely destroy that city leaving only a settler unit that can be a slave or form a new settelment near by.

------------------
"democracy is the worse form of government, except for all the others" winston chruchill

 

[Phorever Phalanx]

Becka- When a AI's city revolted to you I think you were playing Civ1 - I often had that happen when I was keeping a weak opponent alive for too long. The AI did not declare war on you afterwards but they were more mad. I think this also can happen in SMAC.

The programmers have addressed the geographical problems of Civ2, with boundaries established beyond city radii. A natural strategy that was key in Civ1 and Civ2 was to expand as fast and far as you can. With this feature, you will be penalized by doing this too close to a good culture. I know I relied on this too much to beat the computer in Civ2.

My civ2 style was no "open" squares (diamonds?) on coasts, so that other civs could not land troops, then pick up resources with new cities in the interior. I'm anxious to see how I will need to re-tool my location planning.

------------------
<FONT COLOR="blue"><FONT size="4">Phorever</FONT c><FONT COLOR="orange">Phalanx</FONT c></FONT s>

<FONT size="2">"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." Winston Churchill</FONT s>