Let us END the war ourselves!

I have a great idea! Let us have our CIVS declare a state of peace! The war can be officially over as far our civs are concerned, and if China wants to say "The War is still on!" they can, but meanwhile, my citizens will rest assured that I won't fire another shot, or put their children in harms way, and if the former enemy decides to strike, then they can be dealt with...

It's rather stupid that one can obliterate an entire nation, and still be at war with them simply because they drift in the sea with a settler, and I can't find the bahstid.

 

Agreed. Drives me nuts sometimes. Game I got going now.. I destroyed the Americans.. seen one settler escape though. I'm right behind it. I have 2 swordsman chasing after it. Lame. Trying to get a few mountys over in that direction. Errr. Wish they just die.

Like the idea ....

 

What war are you talking about? I don't understand...

BTW, I like your sig.

 

I like to pretend that that lone settler is Aeneas.
unfortunately, there is rarely any land for them to reestablish themselves

 

Are you referring to Bin Laden?

 

Not sure if your quote is serious...

I'm referring to the fact that I have no further desire to expand my borders and want to consolidate my gains. I go to them to sue for peace, and they won't even see me. Meanwhile my people are rioting in the streets becaus they're pissed off at the war that's going on, and I haven't fired a GD shot in TEN YEARS.

THAT'S what irritates me.

Hehe..

 

The problem though is that peace is really a two way street. You can't really "declare peace" unilaterally. But, your enemy will eventually talk to you, then you can negotiate a peace treaty. Your people shouldn't be rioting too much if you don't have troops in enemy territory.

 

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah, if this IS the case... (And things cooled off after I left the enemy territory, too. <and here I was thinking it was a coincidence>) I guess it's good to pull away before you send your diplomats, eh?

Makes sense...

 

I`d like to see the new diplomacy option of cease-fire. Can be declare unilaterally and cuts war weariness by half. If the other guy goes on fighting it will then go up at half normal rate, too. Must keep fights to own territory then, though.

 

For the sake of realism, the fact that a Civ will not see your emissary after you've decimated its country is absurd. But in game turns maybe this is the final 'retribution' of that civ. The latter comment doesn't mean much, but I see no way around it.
In my experience, once I've destroyed/captured about seven good cities they almost always beg for peace. I really haven't been in the situation you talk about here.

 

another example of shortsighted game designers...

Is America in turmoil beacuse the War on Terrorism is dragging on? Not likely. War weariness should be based on what actually goes on, not the fact that someone declares war on a peace of paper. sweden was officially at war with Naples from the Napolionic wars until the late 80's. Didn't mean anything, but peace was just never signed. Didn't cause much trouble though.

Citizens should be upset at constant drafting, loosing battles and territory. Equally, they should be happy about victories.

In civ3 the Cold War woulf have meant the End of the World!

 

I forgot to voice that opinion, but you're absolutely right! It seems like EVERYONE likes a good war until their brother dies in it. I *CAN* see discontent and riots in the streets of newly-occupied cities while the war rages on, though.

 

Each turn represents years. I can't speak for Americans, but if they are still fighting the war 5 years from now, perhaps a percentage of citizens would become unhappy about it. That is what the game is trying to simulate.

They are exaggerating a bit to create a balance of gameplay between all the benefits of the commercial governments (Rep & Democracy) and the Zero War-weariness governments.

The game already simulates "state of peace". Your war weariness is greatly reduced by fighting only within your own borders or doing nothing.

 

For the record, it wasn't Naples (which by the 1980s was gone as an independent nation by about a century), it was San Marino, and in Napoleon's day the war had already "dragged on" for some one and a half century - the "war" began as part of the Thirty Years War.

 

Ahhh, good old Gustav II Adolphus. One of my all-time faves. I'm sure he was just shaking in his boots when he heard the mighty empire of San Marino was out for his blood.

 

Hmmm, actually sounds a bit like the Palestinian situation, don't you think? The Israelis are at war with them, and exacting a heavy toll, but the Palestinians won't discuss peace. (You may not agree with my assessment of the Middle East, but don't turn this into a thread about that, ok?)

Actually, I share your frustration in that you can't get the AI to talk with you about peace even after taking/razing several cities and they are obviously outclassed militarily. Seems silly.

Perhaps it is the AI's way of making you suffer for beating them. Sort of a balancing mechanism.

 

I like that cease fire idea. I sort of see why they took it out in civ 2 terms because it was basically just like peace, but civ 3 is complex enough that you'd think they could find a way to have some sort of meaningful "cease fire" state. Maybe they figured a trade embargo while at peace was close enough. Not at war, but certainly not friends. Doesn't solve that damn settler probelm though.

On a somewhat related topic, I also wish you could demand one civ stop fighting another during diplomatic negotiations.
"We'll give you silks if you desist in your agression against the peacful perisans"
or
"Cease your hostilities against the helpless french immediately or you'll have bigger fish to fry!"

 

Yes but two crucial factors are missing:

My no-losses victory which shouldn't bother the people.

The fact that, with 20 bombers, 15 fighters, and 15 artillery guns, I devastated his army of SIXTY infantry in TWO turns, and *HE* declared war on *ME* first, and *ATTACKED* me first! My only "bad" was refusing to bend over and get raped. He wanted me to give him 120 gold per turn, and to give him silks, or pay the "consequences". I wasn't even ready for a full-scale war, and I obliterated his attacking army (which should have had his so-called "democracy" in an uproar, and I took his two closest border cities (which the last one ended up being his capitol) I first tried to see him before I took his capitol to stop the war, and he wouldn't see me. I took his capitol (which has a FAR lesser consequence now than it did with Civ2) and he STILL wouldn't talk. I destroyed every road he had near the coast (by bombarding it with my THIRTY battleships) and I routinely bombed his capitol over and over and over again, each time trying to stop the war.

I finally stopped, and within five or six turns he comes at me with something like, "Although we prefer the battlefield, we'll offer you a peace treaty... That is... If you give us 1oo gold per turn..."

I find that OUTRAGEOUS!!!... The AI is MUCH better now than before, but you'd think they had ZERO instinct for self-preservation.

Just my $0.02

 

The problem here is that the civ you are negotiating with still has to negotiate with the civ they are at war with. What if they wont talk or want too high a price for peace? I think that the best you could do is say "We'll give you peace if you try to end your war against the Persians."

 

Meetings, conferences... Whatever you want to call them! Summits!

Don't you think it'd be neat seeing simulated dialogue? All the "invited" powers get together for a little "pow-wow".

Yeah baybee! YEAH!

Oh BEHAYVE!