I move my units near Berlin to assault the city. When comes the turn to attack I move it to Berlin, and wtf nothing happens my unit just go on the city tile and doesn't attack. I checked before moving my warriors options, and there is no attack button. I checked once I'm on the city tile to see if there's an attack option still nothing. How do you attack???
My unit doesn't attack.
- Thread starter Flower
- Start date
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
You declare war then attack. Did you declare war?
De Lorimier
North American Scum
You have open borders with them and are not in a state of war. You need to declare war first, wich will put you back on the dege of their border if you are on their land, then you can attack.
mastertyguy
I'm tired!
WHAT!?!?!?!?! Do you mean you want ROP rape back!?!?! Sorry if I misunderstood you, but you're are saying that ROP rape is great, and since you must now play honestly, you're disappointed. Is that it?
O tempora, O mores!
O tempora, O mores!
Right of Passage in Civ3 was ridiculous. Even open borders in Civ4 is ridiculous. Any kind of open passage (to merge the two terms) should involve non-military units only! In other words, missionaries, merchants, and maybe workers.
There should be no military units moving through another civ's territory unless they are BOTH at war with a neighbor and are allied against that neighbor. Really - what nation today would stand for this? Turkey wouldn't let us attack Iraq through their country. France wouldn't allow us to bomb Libya through their airspace. Kuwait only let us because we pretty much own them.
As to the poster, this was an exploit in Civ3. I don't recall EVER seeing the AI do an ROP rape. If the AI can't do it, then it's an exploit to do it to them. Just like Nuke-dropping on a Democracy then asking for peace was NOT an exploit in Civ2 because the AI did it to me all the time.
There should be no military units moving through another civ's territory unless they are BOTH at war with a neighbor and are allied against that neighbor. Really - what nation today would stand for this? Turkey wouldn't let us attack Iraq through their country. France wouldn't allow us to bomb Libya through their airspace. Kuwait only let us because we pretty much own them.
As to the poster, this was an exploit in Civ3. I don't recall EVER seeing the AI do an ROP rape. If the AI can't do it, then it's an exploit to do it to them. Just like Nuke-dropping on a Democracy then asking for peace was NOT an exploit in Civ2 because the AI did it to me all the time.
De Lorimier
North American Scum
There was a time when moving armies through friendly neighboors land wasn't that uncommon. Like you say, most of today's nation wouldn't accept it, but the past is a different story.zeeter said:
It's a nice feature. No more ROP abuse, everything's fine!
GenocideBringer
King
- Joined
- May 29, 2005
- Messages
- 628
Actually, the penalty in Civ3 was good, just not NEARLY as severe as it should have been. The other AIs would be pissed and not trust you, but that really isn't enough. Throughout history, if you did something like that, other nations would go ape****. That's how it should have been.
GenocideBringer said:
Likely you're right. I haven't the energy to look it up. However I can't see the at war nation standing for that. Seems to me that if the 3rd nation pushed the 1st nation back to the 2nd nation's border, they wouldn't be too inclined to stop there. They'd declare war or just assume war on the 2nd nation.
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
Flower said:
Think about this from a multiplayer perspective. Would you ever sign an Open Border pact if any player could abuse it the way you want to?
Realistically, he does have a point. If I have a treaty with someone and something happens to make me want to war with them, I'm not going to declare war, move my troops OUT of his territory, then move them back in.
However, there should be a MAJOR penalty for declaring war with someone you have a treaty with. Something along the lines of EVERYONE stops trading with them.
However, there should be a MAJOR penalty for declaring war with someone you have a treaty with. Something along the lines of EVERYONE stops trading with them.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
zeeter said:
Saudi Arabia, Jordan, some Caspian Sea Countries, etc all allowed us to use military bases in recent wars, not just one of two countries. I think Civ2 might have been the best, where you needed a strategic alliance to do these things. I like the flexibility that Civ3 and Civ4 have offered, but sometimes a special treaty that shows a closer (but not perminant) alliance is a good idea.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
This simply raises, once again, why we need a middle-level of border state. A border which is 'semi-permeable'-lets missionaries, Great People, Workers et al through your territory, but not military units. The trade off is that your international trade revenue is relatively 'piss-poor'. If you want the full benefits of international trade with another nation, then you must be prepared to sign a full open border agreement.
On a related note, then, does this mean that 'Pearl Harbour' attacks are out of the question? I think that kind of 'sneak attack' thing should be allowed-even if all your units are moved beyond the border afterwards. Hope that makes sense.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
On a related note, then, does this mean that 'Pearl Harbour' attacks are out of the question? I think that kind of 'sneak attack' thing should be allowed-even if all your units are moved beyond the border afterwards. Hope that makes sense.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
That is the lines I am thinking along, Willem. The Civ4 equivalent of a Brotherhood pact (or vassalage if you completely OWN the civ in question 
!) should allow for totally open borders and a big bonus to trade. However, such pacts should require formal cancellation BEFORE you can go to war. Also, though, it should be possible for a player to open their borders to a civ without the need for said pact, it just should be a very uncommon occurance.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
!) should allow for totally open borders and a big bonus to trade. However, such pacts should require formal cancellation BEFORE you can go to war. Also, though, it should be possible for a player to open their borders to a civ without the need for said pact, it just should be a very uncommon occurance.Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Aussie_Lurker said:That is the lines I am thinking along, Willem. The Civ4 equivalent of a Brotherhood pact (or vassalage if you completely OWN the civ in question
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
I agree with you completely, I think it's silly to only have two conditions. Tile sharing and ROP should only occur if you have a formal alliance with another civ. They got it right in SMAC, and I'm really hoping they change this in Civ 4 sometime down the line. I don't like the sounds of this new set up at all.
Aussie_Lurker said:That is the lines I am thinking along, Willem. The Civ4 equivalent of a Brotherhood pact (or vassalage if you completely OWN the civ in question
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
I completely agree, and have since I first heard about the two borders options. Especially since you now need open borders for trade route to form, how can they not have thought of this?
Similar threads
- Poll
