Ditch an ally??

JGii

Chieftain
Joined
Dec 19, 2003
Messages
3
Location
Nottingham UK
Playing a bloodlust game and made an ally of nearest AI (Germans) early on to provide buffer zone against large AIs. Knocked out all the other civs now, just got the Germans left. Need to cancel alliance in order to knock them out. Trouble is they won't talk to me!!! Schoolboy error I know, but I want to end the game now, rather than ditching it. Does anyone know any sure fire techniques to get a substantially weaker ally to talk to you, when they 'know' you're just going to obliterate them? Thanks in advance for any words of wisdom.
 
I'd try to send in spies to their capital and commit terrorist acts on them. Destroy improvements, poison water supply, ignite nukes. All the nasty stuff I usually never do, but that was a decision you made by playing bloodlust.

screw 'em, kill 'em, and eat 'em.
 
If they're not in democracy, bribe one of their cities. They will always talk to you even if they don't want to (IIRC). If you don't to them any harm that same turn, I don't understand why they don't want to talk to you?
 
Unfortunately they're in democracy so bribery is out. They've refused to talk to me for 5 consecutive turns without my aggressing at all. I'll try nuking their capital with a spy next, although as poisoning water has not worked, not sure that will...
 
Thanks guys - finally finished - nuking capital had no effect whatsoever, other than the guaranteed capture of spy - no pollution, no diplomatic effect, no reduce in poputlation/citizen levels. Poisoning water of capital did the trick (must have been poisoning other city previously for no effect) - although irritatingly, cancellation of alliance led to removal of all carefully organised troops from their territory - another thing I'd forgotten! Anyway, all done an dusted, 158% in the bank:) Thanks again for the advice:goodjob:
 
Traitors, the bunch of you
 
...thats bloodlust for you. I almost always win via spaceship. Conqeuring every other civ means only one thing to me, too many cities to micro manage. I hate that.
 
if you have statue of liberty start revolution. now you can demand tribute or attack them. your goverment comes back next turn so no big deal.
 
I always play on bloodlust, because I think that it is no fun to just retire or to send a spaceship to a distant planet. Why would colonizing a planet mean the end of a game anyway?
 
Why should the game be over when you conquer the world? I mean, there are still a bunch of guerillas to take care of that emerge at random.

Or why does the game end 2020? Did the programmers think we'd reach some ultimate peace at that year, or all problems would be solved?

I think the whole point with different goals in the game is that it means a more varied game, which is fundamental for civ2, and the reason so many still play it.:)
 
I know this would never happen, but...

Rather than a civ IV, I'd like to see a new civ II. Now that computers are faster, and ram is better, we have mega RAM, more memory, etc. It would be great to see them simply take The perfect civ II base, push the end further, additional science, better AI, all of the things we would want to see, and release "Civ II: the edition we wanted to make in 1995, but couldn't."
 
Originally posted by rponton
I know this would never happen, but...

Rather than a civ IV, I'd like to see a new civ II. Now that computers are faster, and ram is better, we have mega RAM, more memory, etc. It would be great to see them simply take The perfect civ II base, push the end further, additional science, better AI, all of the things we would want to see, and release "Civ II: the edition we wanted to make in 1995, but couldn't."

...hexagons instead of squares--Hey, most of us are adults, right?
 
Top Bottom