Daft emergencies

[Abaxial]

We complain about the AI being poor at waging war, but it also does other things that are downright stupid. For example, several times I have seen this occur: I convert a neighbouring civ to my religion, including their holy city. Their religion is now completely extirpated; not a single follower. They then call a religious emergency, which is completely impossible to succeed. I can ignore it totally and be sure of winning it.

 

[Zdarg]

We complain about the AI being poor at waging war, but it also does other things that are downright stupid. For example, several times I have seen this occur: I convert a neighbouring civ to my religion, including their holy city. Their religion is now completely extirpated; not a single follower. They then call a religious emergency, which is completely impossible to succeed. I can ignore it totally and be sure of winning it.

Quite possible to succeed. The point of religious emergency isn't converting the city into it's initial religioin, converting into some third will do.

 

[Abaxial]

Still not possible. The civ calling the emergency doesn't have a third religion, and there is no civ with a third religion anywhere nearby.

One also sees civs joining in military emergencies that they can't possibly contribute to for reasons of distance,

 

[Zdarg]

Still not possible. The civ calling the emergency doesn't have a third religion, and there is no civ with a third religion anywhere nearby.

One also sees civs joining in military emergencies that they can't possibly contribute to for reasons of distance,

Why it should be nearby? 30 turns is a lot, even at a huge map.

 

[Galvatron]

Still not possible. The civ calling the emergency doesn't have a third religion, and there is no civ with a third religion anywhere nearby.

One also sees civs joining in military emergencies that they can't possibly contribute to for reasons of distance,

You're confusing possible with likely.

 

[WillowBrook]

I had a military aid emergency (the one where you send money, not try to capture a city) last night where the attacking civs that triggered the emergency voted for it. They had negative score for being at war with the target civ, but it seems quite silly that they even had the option to join.

 

[steveg700]

Am I missing something, or is the information as to who is eligible to vote not provided to the player prior to the vote?

Some Congress!

 

[WillowBrook]

Am I missing something, or is the information as to who is eligible to vote not provided to the player prior to the vote?

Some Congress!

Pretty sure you're not missing anything.

 

[steveg700]

Pretty sure you're not missing anything.

LOL. Really blows my mind. Not only does the emergency ambush the player in such a way that no horse-trading is possible, but the actual participants are all concealed in a black box.

Knowing the names and number of those I might be in contention with kinda sorta factors into how much favor I should toss in. As-is, it's tossing a dart blindfolded without knowing which wall the board is on.

 

[Zdarg]

Knowing the names and number of those I might be in contention with kinda sorta factors into how much favor I should toss in. As-is, it's tossing a dart blindfolded without knowing which wall the board is on.

But it's quite evident: zero. Most times, you really want an emergency against you to happen, why to waste favors on voting contra?

 

[steveg700]

But it's quite evident: zero. Most times, you really want an emergency against you to happen, why to waste favors on voting contra?

Trade routes getting cancelled or plundered, religious units getting ganked, tiles getting pillaged....All kinds of reasons it's not worth the hassle, and that's what favor is for. The rewards for me as the target winning the emergency are generally nothing to write home about (which stands to reason, as this is a type of catch-up mechanism).

 

[Zdarg]

Trade routes getting cancelled or plundered, religious units getting ganked, tiles getting pillaged....All kinds of reasons it's not worth the hassle, and that's what favor is for. The rewards for me as the target winning the emergency are generally nothing to write home about (which stands to reason, as this is a type of catch-up mechanism).

Trade routes? Well, you don't do foreign trade routes unless with alliance, and alliances would never join an emergency against you. Ok, you can lose some because of being close to enemy, but no big deal. And they can pillage some of your tiles, but you can pillage much more of theirs. And you can conquer a few of their cities without any grievances, because it was they who started the war. What could be better?

 

[steveg700]

Trade routes? Well, you don't do foreign trade routes unless with alliance, and alliances would never join an emergency against you. Ok, you can lose some because of being close to enemy, but no big deal. And they can pillage some of your tiles, but you can pillage much more of theirs. And you can conquer a few of their cities without any grievances, because it was they who started the war. What could be better?

These are sloppy absolutes in a game full of dynamic elements. Trade routes with allies are preferable, but not always optimal. Rather, a better absolute is to do trade routes wherever it seems to make sense to do them, and avoid having them plundered for no great gain. You can certainly find any given route plundered if there are multiple enemies streaming units towards your territory.

Of course, if you have a casual position on using war as a tool for advancing your game through pillaging and conquest, then using emergencies as a smokescreen seems a moot meta. Grievances are gained for capturing cities, regardless of who started it

 

[Patine]

Trade routes? Well, you don't do foreign trade routes unless with alliance, and alliances would never join an emergency against you. Ok, you can lose some because of being close to enemy, but no big deal. And they can pillage some of your tiles, but you can pillage much more of theirs. And you can conquer a few of their cities without any grievances, because it was they who started the war. What could be better?

These are sloppy absolutes in a game full of dynamic elements. Trade routes with allies are preferable, but not always optimal. Rather, a better absolute is to do trade routes wherever it seems to make sense to do them, and avoid having them plundered for no great gain. You can certainly find any given route plundered if there are multiple enemies streaming units towards your territory.

Of course, if you have a casual position on using war as a tool for advancing your game through pillaging and conquest, then using emergencies as a smokescreen seems a moot meta. Grievances are gained for capturing cities, regardless of who started it.

Yes, this is odd. In the real world, trade deals are often very different from military alliance. Look the U.S. and China for the last 25 years, as a good example. That idea is too simplistic.

 

[Zdarg]

These are sloppy absolutes in a game full of dynamic elements. Trade routes with allies are preferable, but not always optimal. Rather, a better absolute is to do trade routes wherever it seems to make sense to do them, .

That is, where you receive food and production, and it always means alliance. Trade routes are for food and production. Money? Who needs money?
Well, there are situations where you trade with a civ just to make a trading post to have more espionage for a future war with that civ. But, unless you are Mongolia, it's not a big deal.

 

[steveg700]

That is, where you receive food and production, and it always means alliance. Trade routes are for food and production. Money? Who needs money?
Well, there are situations where you trade with a civ just to make a trading post to have more espionage for a future war with that civ. But, unless you are Mongolia, it's not a big deal.

To my way of thinking, boiling Civ down to a bunch of flippant "always" and "nevers" is ham-handed. Some games don't jibe with the playbook, which is why strategy and tactics are not synonymous terms. Gold is useful, and less fluid in some games than others. Not every civ or map is best-suited to prioritize a hub or harbor. If I'm playing a religious game stuck between Arabia and Russia, then I'd better get holy sites out there or I'm not going to have a religious game for long. Any trade route may have to pass to or through them, and so getting embroiled in an emergency may be pointless. If I'm not already planning to attack them, then the sudden opportunity provided by an emergency may be unwelcome. And if I am, I won't spare myself any grievances for captures, which seemed to be central to your initial point that emergencies present some useful opportunity.

That's just one of many instances where an emergency is worth voting against, "big deal" or not.

 

[Zdarg]

To my way of thinking, boiling Civ down to a bunch of flippant "always" and "nevers" is ham-handed. Some games don't jibe with the playbook, which is why strategy and tactics are not synonymous terms. Gold is useful, and less fluid in some games than others. Not every civ or map is best-suited to prioritize a hub or harbor. If I'm playing a religious game stuck between Arabia and Russia, then I'd better get holy sites out there or I'm not going to have a religious game for long. Any trade route may have to pass to or through them, and so getting embroiled in an emergency may be pointless. If I'm not already planning to attack them, then the sudden opportunity provided by an emergency may be unwelcome. And if I am, I won't spare myself any grievances for captures, which seemed to be central to your initial point that emergencies present some useful opportunity.

That's just one of many instances where an emergency is worth voting against, "big deal" or not.

Gah. In other words, you might be in weak position, for some or other reason. And when you have weaknesses, you don't want a war. Understandable. In fact, impossible to disagree.
But, pay attention: if you are in weak position, how in hell it happened that you gave them a reason for an emergency?

 

[nrh]

Gah. In other words, you might be in weak position, for some or other reason. And when you have weaknesses, you don't want a war. Understandable. In fact, impossible to disagree.
But, pay attention: if you are in weak position, how in hell it happened that you gave them a reason for an emergency?

Easy. You're a nuclear power and your nukes can't fall in the hands of a terrorist organization!
LOL!

 

[Pietato]

I had a military aid emergency (the one where you send money, not try to capture a city) last night where the attacking civs that triggered the emergency voted for it. They had negative score for being at war with the target civ, but it seems quite silly that they even had the option to join.

That is what is known as American foreign policy.

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

I have yet to figure out how to propose things for the world congress, or how things actually get on the docket to be voted on, so to speak.
And I can't abstain? What?
It's all very mysterious as to how this all works.

In civ 5 you just pick from a list of topics and everyone votes on it. It was simple.