Does anyone else think its stupid your troops are transported out of someones borders when this deal is canceled? Just yesterday I put some SAM Infantry on a chinese island, I declared war and they were transported back to my island, thats the single reason I lost the entire game.
Opening borders
- Thread starter Kartik
- Start date
MrCynical
Deity
Out of interest, how did such a trivial event cost you the game?
The reason this happens is due to the ridiculous lengths it was being abused by human players in Civ 3. People would make a right of passage agreement (the Civ 3 equivalent of open borders), stick a stack of units next to each enemy city, declare war, and immediately take half the enemy empire. This was just plain silly, and made the game more than a little easy.
The reason this happens is due to the ridiculous lengths it was being abused by human players in Civ 3. People would make a right of passage agreement (the Civ 3 equivalent of open borders), stick a stack of units next to each enemy city, declare war, and immediately take half the enemy empire. This was just plain silly, and made the game more than a little easy.
Perhaps there should be a lighter version of opening your borders.
Something like : only scouts, priests, and all other non military units.
The normal border mode could be the one we've now.
The heavy version could be that you could use that civ's cities airports, etc...
But as MrCynical says, it might have been abussed a bit to much.
Something like : only scouts, priests, and all other non military units.
The normal border mode could be the one we've now.
The heavy version could be that you could use that civ's cities airports, etc...
Well it's rather stupid and unreal to see them being removed, and returned by some strange force, to nearby cities.Kartik said:
But as MrCynical says, it might have been abussed a bit to much.
Although, I had the AI doing the same thing on me more often then I returned the favor.MrCynical said:
Then dont accept border agreements, or cancel them when you see enemy troops near them.MrCynical said:
How it costed me to the lose the game was, I was attacking a big chinese settlement that had no units gaurding it,it was on its own small little island right next to my main island, and the rest of the chinese mainland was about 20 turns away. Now that I failed to capture it, they started producing units in that city and sent them on ships to my island. And they had naval superiourity, so thats how I lost.
Mewtarthio
Emperor
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2004
- Messages
- 1,930
You should have had a transport just inside international waters ready to drop off your troops as soon as war was declared.
MrCynical
Deity
Kartik said:
This comment makes no sense in response to what I said. The problem was humans abusing border agreements with the AI, which really is not smart enough to have the above options, not vice versa.
MrCynical said:
Its your game, you should be able to ''abuse'' the AI, its not like you gain anything from winning other then fun, and maybe there should be an option to disable it.
Also, my units were musket men , I had no way to transport them other then by boat.
MrCynical
Deity
Kartik said:
By that argument the AI should do absolutely nothing from 4000BC, so it's nice and easy to wipe them out. In a game like Civ the AI should not have huge loopholes left in it when they can be closed. You've really achieved nothing if you just win by abusing it.
Musketmen and SAM infantry seem a novel combination. What was the problem with using boats as Mewtarthio suggested?
If you want it to, then go ahead....Why would you even care what some random person does in thier single player game?MrCynical said:
And also, My production was REALLY LOW, and I just had 3 boats, all were carriers, not to mention the enemy had a BATTLESHIP right next to his borders, and I could only train ironclads....
Mewtarthio
Emperor
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2004
- Messages
- 1,930
Then I guess amphibious warfare would be a poor strategy. That'd be like trying to win a wonder race against an Industrious civ with stone, marble, a whole lotta mines & workshops, and a tech lead. Now, if you really wanted to take him down, you should have not simply waited for amphibious attacks to become more viable but done your best to make sure they'd become viable. That means taking naval towns, improving the production in said naval towns, and building a decent amount of transports to park outside his borders(not to metnion acquiring a source of Oil). Bribe his neighbors into war against him as a diversion.
He was a human player and was dead first with points, I was in last place. I had another alliance with another human player and thats where I got all my men from, I couldnt wait any longer, the city was empty and it was a perfect opportunity. It was taking me 78 turns at a time just to build one ship.Mewtarthio said:
Mewtarthio
Emperor
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2004
- Messages
- 1,930
I admire your attempts to fight back what was probably inevitable defeat, but you were incorrect in assuming it was the perfect opportunity. You failed in your invasion because the game simply does not allow you to station troops inside enemy borders before declaring war. It would be like building an army of Scouts and complaining that you can't take a city. If the only coastal towns you owned really took 78 turns to build a ship and you were in last place, chances are defeat was inevitable.
My queston is this: How did you get the troops over in the first place? Transports, right? So what was the problem with keeping the troops on the transports until you declared war, then invading.
On a side note, if I saw you moving troops into my island, my first assumption is going to be invasion, and I would have canceled the OB myself, then possibly declared war on you.
On a side note, if I saw you moving troops into my island, my first assumption is going to be invasion, and I would have canceled the OB myself, then possibly declared war on you.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
I agree with you Kid. If I was in an MP game where another human was sending thousands of troops into my land, I would cancel the deal quick smart. In fact....I think someone is doing this in my current game!!!!!
On a related note, I think there is a good argument for a three-tiered border system-Closed: which only allows in invisible units; Open Borders: which lets in workers, settlers, scouts and missionaries and Right of Passage: which lets in all units. The benefit of OB in this instance is the power to keep out military units, but at a cost to your economy (trade routes worth less) and diplomatic relations (you get a bonus, but not as big). A full RoP would get better trade routes and diplomacy, but at the cost of letting their military units pass through your lands (and possibly making you a target for war from another neighbour!)
Aussie_Lurker.
On a related note, I think there is a good argument for a three-tiered border system-Closed: which only allows in invisible units; Open Borders: which lets in workers, settlers, scouts and missionaries and Right of Passage: which lets in all units. The benefit of OB in this instance is the power to keep out military units, but at a cost to your economy (trade routes worth less) and diplomatic relations (you get a bonus, but not as big). A full RoP would get better trade routes and diplomacy, but at the cost of letting their military units pass through your lands (and possibly making you a target for war from another neighbour!)
Aussie_Lurker.
Englor
General
Aussie_Lurker said:
Well though out aussie, in in the event of canelation wheather a simple degrade or in full, degrade means that the units are simply caste outside the foreigne lands, whilest total expolsion sends the units back to the nearest city.Ofcourse this may only pertain to the visible units and the AI would mention this as being in favour unless whatever demands are met. More militant leaders might just opt for total expolstion whereas philiosophical and spiritual or charismatic leaders may degrade the agreement first than look to toatl cancelation. Eh?
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Sounds about right to me. Aggressive civs would definitely care less about sparking tensions than philosophical or charismatic civs would. It is also worth noting that totally cancelling a Right of Passage Agreement should carry a heavy diplomatic cost, wheras a downgrade to OB would have a much smaller cost.
Aussie_Lurker.
Aussie_Lurker.
Englor
General
Aussie_Lurker said:
Quite so, gotta watch those aggressavists.
The problem with RoP/OB was/is that human players don't act in the same way that 'real' civs would. Human players are looking to win the game so will attack whoever they can defeat, regardless of their relations. This wouldn't happen in real life. Other than on a few occasions, no civ has been on good enough relationships with another to allow a large army into their lands only for said army to turn around and attack them. Generally there is a slow slide into war with relationships gong sour over a period of time.
The only way I can see this be accurately modelled in game would be if you could only declare war on a civ that you either had bad relations with (and would therefore not allow OB) or was so far beneath you (technologically, score, culture, whatever) that your civ would not feel as if it was attacking a developed nation (I'm thinking about the Aztecs and Conquistidors here).
The only way I can see this be accurately modelled in game would be if you could only declare war on a civ that you either had bad relations with (and would therefore not allow OB) or was so far beneath you (technologically, score, culture, whatever) that your civ would not feel as if it was attacking a developed nation (I'm thinking about the Aztecs and Conquistidors here).
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Well, one of the good things I liked in Civ2, was how you could urge a civ to withdraw its troops from close to your cities. Of course, this was before culture, borders and RoP existed in Civ, so they had free reign within the rest of your 'territory', but as soon as they got near a city, you would get a pop-up.
By the same token, though, there could be a system for 'border incursions' between civs lacking a full RoP agreement. Effectively, your units can 'violate' closed borders without automatic war, but if you refuse a request to remove those troops, then a state of war exists. By the same token, frequent border incursions could greatly sour relations between nations-over time-to the point where war gets declared.
Aussie_Lurker.
By the same token, though, there could be a system for 'border incursions' between civs lacking a full RoP agreement. Effectively, your units can 'violate' closed borders without automatic war, but if you refuse a request to remove those troops, then a state of war exists. By the same token, frequent border incursions could greatly sour relations between nations-over time-to the point where war gets declared.
Aussie_Lurker.
Similar threads
