Liberation

[LMR]

Say you are Britain and have a mutual protection pact with France. All of a sudden, the Germans invade! When you go to help your French friends and retake their captured cities, they become your cities. Why? You have helped liberate the French, so the city should go back to them, shouldn't it? If you are in an alliance you should be able to choose whether to liberate the city, in which case it goes back to France, or take the city, where it will come under your control, much to the dismay of France, which will hurt your reputation.

 

[Mordack]

not sure about this

too much like declaring war on your ally

ripe for abuse

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Let's say you can "swear a pact of liberation", meaning that you have no choice but to liberate them. So no abuse. If you fight a war of "liberation" rather than one of conquest, there is little to no WW and your rep is improved slightly though significantly on account of your altruism. However, these effects are dampened when you begin fighting for cities that were not originally belonging to your allies.

 

[mastertyguy]

Let's say you can "swear a pact of liberation", meaning that you have no choice but to liberate them. So no abuse. If you fight a war of "liberation" rather than one of conquest, there is little to no WW and your rep is improved slightly though significantly on account of your altruism. However, these effects are dampened when you begin fighting for cities that were not originally belonging to your allies.

That's good. But you should gain rep (like, a lot) when you liberate a city. And you DON'T ask this civ to help you in a future war in Irak (maybe too precise as an example , wish you are not a bush lover). And should lose rep, too. I just got this idea writing this post, so it is probably said in another thread.
btw, to everybody who thinks France is a goddamn traitor, you americans wouldn't be here without them.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

And you DON'T ask this civ to help you in a future war in Irak (maybe to precise as an example , wish you are not a bush lover).

Does my avatar make me look like one?

 

[LMR]

Lockesdonkey is right. A 'pact of liberation' is what I meant

 

[German Soldier]

[

Say you are Britain and have a mutual protection pact with France. All of a sudden, the Germans invade!

Why should us Gemans invade , we are peaceful now, lol hahaha, and what the other guy said is really funny, how america is always complaining about the french when the french were the ones who made England surrender its colonies.

 

[Naokaukodem]

In Civ3 you can always give you cities to any AI. What would be good would be the AI doing the same for you. The AI in Civ3 never give or trade cities...

 

[Corvex]

In Civ3 you can always give you cities to any AI. What would be good would be the AI doing the same for you. The AI in Civ3 never give or trade cities...

...unless you beat the hell out of the first

 

[CurtSibling]

[

Why should us Gemans invade , we are peaceful now, lol hahaha, and what the other guy said is really funny, how america is always complaining about the french when the french were the ones who made England surrender its colonies.

What has this got to do with the topic at hand?


'on topic'
The 'pact of alliance' idea is great.
It would leead to cool gameplay/scenario results for a vanquished
civ to get back her cities after liberation from a powerful ally!

 

[ComradeDavo]

This liberation idea sounds pretty cool Obviously it would need alot of work to implement etc but fundamentally it is something I would like to see.

Let's say you can "swear a pact of liberation", meaning that you have no choice but to liberate them

Yes maybe that would work.

 

[Sub]

This is a good idea. I think it would be cool if you could apply this to civilizations that were completly destroyed too. For example, say the germans completly destroy the french. You could go in and recapture those citys and reestablish the french government. I dunno, i think it would be cool.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I have said it before. If you are not currently at war with a nation, then when you 'capture' a city, that was previously theirs, from a third nation-then you will be given the option to either 'annex' the city or 'liberate' it. This choice was often offered to you in Birth of the Federation, and it worked very well. Obviously, if you are in an alliance with said nation, then it would be possible to leave your troops within those cities as well-all the better to prevent recapture-otherwise you have to leave them just outside the city if you liberate it. Alternatively, if you choose to 'annex' a city, then you should have the chance to gift/sell the city back to them at a later date. As it was previously theirs, they would be MUCH more likely to take it from you.
As for WHO a city belongs to, this will probably depend on who makes up the majority population and/or what the highest culture level in that city is. For instance, if the city was originally French, but has been under English occupation for over 1000 years, then there is a PRETTY GOOD chance that the people of that city no longer see themselves as French anymore. Thus, a German army cutting a swathe through English territory would NOT have an option to 'Liberate' this city for the French-as it is no longer TRULY French.
Hope that made sense !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Corvex]

This is a good idea. I think it would be cool if you could apply this to civilizations that were completly destroyed too. For example, say the germans completly destroy the french. You could go in and recapture those citys and reestablish the french government. I dunno, i think it would be cool.

What would be particularly cool would be if you could set it up as a kind of puppet regime.

 

[Sub]

What would be particularly cool would be if you could set it up as a kind of puppet regime.

That would work pretty nice with this.

 

[Synthshadow]

btw, to everybody who thinks France is a goddamn traitor, you americans wouldn't be here without them.

... And neither would you French Canadians! Doesnt mean France are any less traitorous over the years.....

Still... we're getting off topic, I always wanted libertaion as countries that I was friends with were getting their bums smacked by a stronger Civ and I wanted to help but didnt want to conquer the city and risk losing it, to give back to my friends in diplomacy.

 

[German Soldier]

... And neither would you French Canadians! Doesnt mean France are any less traitorous over the years.....

Hey mastertguy , England is still pissed off because they lost america because of the french, and because France didn't want to go to Irak, Thats why i think France is pretty cool. At least Us Germans and the french are not sucking bush's balls like Tony Blair is doing. He is gonna lose the election, like in Spain. We shouldn't be afraid of America. wellllll lets change the subject now. VIve le France (under german occupation) just kidding guys, i love the french. .

 

[sealman]

Does my avatar make me look like one?

To me, it looks like a blue boney hand reaching up into the red stary sky trying to whack that red plane out of the air

Back on topic: Liberation is all over rated. When I go to war, it is for three people. Me, myself and I. All three of us are in agreement and my allies are just there to take some of the focus off of me. If I happen to recapture an allied city, great. That is just one more I won't have to take when I go to war against them later on.

After all, the goal of Civilzation is to win, not to mimik reality. If you guys want to give a city back to another civ, thus boosting their economy and total shield output and the expense of yours, be my guest. As for me, the great Seal Banner will be flying over every city I take (and can hold) regardless of who originally owned it.

Oh, and the French impact on the Revolutionary War is highly overstated. The American Colonies beat the English with very little actual French military assistance. But, that is a topic for another thread in a different forum.

 

[German Soldier]

thats true, the impact french troops had wasn't as importan as all the weapons the french gave the americans to start the revolutions, even before french troops arrive in america french money (weapons were being use by the american colonies)

 

[sealman]

thats true, the impact french troops had wasn't as importan as all the weapons the french gave the americans to start the revolutions, even before french troops arrive in america french money (weapons were being use by the american colonies)

And which weapons would those be? The muskets and rifles that the Continental Army used which were already owned by the men or the artillery pieces that were captured from the English? Don't get me wrong.. the French impact was great, but it was not there when it was needed most - the early stages of the war.

And yes, French Loans did help finance the war, but again, these came after the war started. France was sitting there stradleing the fence until it became clear the the Colonies could win. French support helped push the colonies to victory which would have been achieved anyway, albeit a few years later.

And again, this is way off topic and I would be glad to discuss/debate this issue in a more appropriate thread.