Puppet strings

[Machi]

One thing that frustrates me is that in Civ3 when we enter into agreements it always has to be fully reciprocal. Wouldn't it be cool if you could get one Civ to declare war on another Civ without you entering into the same war? or whatabout an embargo, or whatever.

I think the possibility for one sided agreements would help to balance out the game. You could sit back with a huge commerce empire and ask others to fight your wars for you or you could be asked by other Civs to stop fighting another Civ in return for say cash, resource, whatever.

Any thoughts?

 

[Grawss]

True, this would be cool but not historical, plus the other civ would hate you for it and maybe go to war with you after the other is taken care of.

 

[Paalikles]

I thought someone were supposed to include this in the game from the beginning...
or perhaps I was wrong
I vaguely remember reading some preview or review or something stating that military conquest was no longer a needed strategy, because civ3 let you be the master of puppets, who would be fighting your wars

Well, I could have been dreaming (making this my first dream about civ...SCARY!)

 

[Frodo Bolson]

1) Is that supposed to be fun? You can't even see them battling, because of the fog of war.

2) If I understood well, you ask a B civilization to go to war with a C civilization, but... why would they do that? Joining an ally in a battle may have some sense, but this you want (ask B civilization to risk their units and cities against another C civilization while you are relaxed in your palace seeing workers go from here to there) has not sense at all, not only it is not historical but it is completely unrealistic. The only reason for them to do that would be the "I wouldn't crush you like an insect", but for that you would have to have a big army, and wich would be the fun to make a big army just to have it there?

 

[God]

It would make more sense if you could encite to rivals into war. Like have your spy dress up as some other civs spy and purposely get caught. Something like that.

 

[Zouave]

Originally posted by Machi
One thing that frustrates me is that in Civ3 when we enter into agreements it always has to be fully reciprocal. Wouldn't it be cool if you could get one Civ to declare war on another Civ without you entering into the same war? or whatabout an embargo, or whatever.

I think the possibility for one sided agreements would help to balance out the game. You could sit back with a huge commerce empire and ask others to fight your wars for you or you could be asked by other Civs to stop fighting another Civ in return for say cash, resource, whatever.

Any thoughts?

That is EXACTLY what the British did to the French throughout the Napoleonic Wars. They basically hired other states, such as Austria and Prussia, to wage war against France.

The lack of this option, which existed in Civ 2, is both non-historical and limiting in terms of playability. So you are right, but Firaxis doesn't care.

Oh yes, you should see the entire map, including units, of any civ you are allied with or any civ you have paid to go to war.

 

[God]

Yeah but British were in war against France also.

 

[Sabotage]

This wouldn't be too realistic. But it could prove very interesting. Nations could opt to be "Mercenary" nations. Hiring out their military to others for gold or technologies.

 

[Qitai]

Would you agree if the AI pays you to have a war with another civ and sits back watching both of you fight?

Would this happen in the real world?

 

[wasabi]

Originally posted by Zouave
oh yes, you should see the entire map, including units, of any civ you are allied with or any civ you have paid to go to war.

WOW!! thats watching every move he makes. and when you reach modern time you'll be watching a lot of units move around!

 

[Trinity]

I hate agreements too. They fight wars on your turf. They drag you into wars just to screw you.

You're CivA. CivG attacks CivB. CivB asks you to join the war against CivG. You do and are cleaning house, annexing massive territory. Civ B settles with CivG. You keep fighting because CivG won't talk to you. CivB makes trade embargoes against you. You eliminate CivG. The embargoes end because you've got luxury resources the rest of the world was trading with CivG.

It continues. CivA, trying to better your relations with CivC. You form a MPP with CivB to watch your back. CivD declares war on CivC. CivB then allies with CivD against CivC. CivC dares attack a unit of CivB. You are then obligated to go to war against CivC unless you want to go to war with CivB, CivD and have your reputation tarnished forever around the world.

So since your reputation with CivC is tarnished forever you decide to take a couple of cities. CivD settles with CivC. CivB continues the war. CivC asks you for a peace agreement. You agree to it. CivB is now annoyed, but you still have your RoP with them.

CivB is winning the war and is now the most powerful in the world. You build up your military. Then they go Communist, and you start making major power and cultural gains and overtake the lead. You just got a better deal selling ivory to CivF, so you want to renegotiate your ivory trade deal with CivB. Remember you just got 150 gold per turn from CivF for this item. CivB won't give you 1 per turn. He tells you, "You have broken deals in the past, and I will never deal with you again."

You get tired of them pounding CivC for some 40 turns, so you remove your RoP. CivB is now furious, as is CivC. You get an RoP with CivC just because you want to watch the progress -- "Against my better judgement, but I'll agree" CivC says (furious).

CivB violates your territory, and you ask them to leave. They declare war. You form an alliance with CivC. They agree but are still furious. CivB breaks CivC's back, and your troops arrive and pound CivB's forces eliminating a stack of 10 infantry. CivC loses another city. You counterattack and take the city. The citizens rejoice! You pull your troops out and go to the diplomacy screen and outright give the city back to CivC for three reasons: you don't need it, and it's so far away from you the corruption is catastrophic, and it was theirs in the first place.

CivC remains furious with you. Moral of the story: No good deed goes unpunished.

If you retake their cities from CivB and give them back to them enough times, will your standing with CivC ever improve?

In the end, it may be necessary to crush them all.

 

[Quentin]

Rules are meant to be broken, so why should it not be possible to have one sided agreements? It is absolutely possible, it is just that if this happened in the real world the person will probably not be happy but he still might agree to it. I think it is important to also think of what is POSSIBLE rather than just what is HISTORICALLY ACCURATE.

 

[Trinity]

A deal is a deal.... until a better one comes along.

Your reputation may suffer, but then you always have your military.

 

[TheNiceOne]

Originally posted by Zouave
That is EXACTLY what the British did to the French throughout the Napoleonic Wars. They basically hired other states, such as Austria and Prussia, to wage war against France.

If I'm not mistaken, Britain and France were at war, so this example is closer to what we already have in civ3: You are already in war, and pay a third country for a military alliance against your enemy.

The lack of this option, which existed in Civ 2, is both non-historical and limiting in terms of playability. So you are right, but Firaxis doesn't care.

Whether it is historical can be debated, but I do agree that it is limiting in terms of playability. Paying (or threatening) another civ to declare a war against or stop trading with a third civ without you being involved, and also getting a one-sided ROP would enhance the fun of diplomacy.

I don't understand your attitude vs. Firaxis though. I think they have shown quite clearly that they do care about our opinions. If not, we wouldn't have stacked movement or sentry command, nor reduced corruption (due to cheaper FP and more effective police stations and corthouses), and we couldn't look forward to a much improved editor with a mini-map feature.

Oh yes, you should see the entire map, including units, of any civ you are allied with or any civ you have paid to go to war.

But this is completely unhistorical. Most of the time countries has been allied, they have still done their best to keep their secrets. Or do you think Hitler informed Stalin of all his troop movements during the summer of 1940?

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Why would this not be historical???????

There's plenty of examples where puppet states fought it out, but especially the small German kingdoms and states often where simply bought into or out of wars, even before the main partis were at war openly. Bismarck bought Bavaria out of an alliance with France, after all! Why can't we do this in Civ3: line up an alliance, but before we declare war!

I mean, how unrealistic would it be buy everyone, then go to war when we're ready?

 

[Masquerouge]

Seeing the entire map was something I hated in CTP, and I think in CIV3 it will be worse, with the units moving one by one and SQUARE BY SQUARE ! Oh my god.
Just watching my ennemies' moves is enough for me. Don't care what the workers in the world are doing.

And I think treaties are quite good the way they work now.

 

[plomeros]

Just watching civ is enough for me...

But yes, of course it is historicly correct to be able to "pay" other nations to go to war for you.

The Napoleonic wars is one good example. It could be argued that the crusades were a similar case, where the Pope wanted to get rid of the violent elements in Christian Europe and declared a holy war far, far away. The Cold war is full of examples of fighting proxy wars.

Of course no nation paid 50 gold and then had a nice fight, but due to the crappy system in civ, that is the way it has to be portraited.

Another example is that I would gladly pay High Gamer 50 golds to enter this forum. My day is booring...

 

[Paalikles]

Why does having the option to have people fight wars for you automaticly put you in a spot where you do not have to do anything?

-You could spend your time:
-fighting other civs
-getting a tech lead
-race for the spaceship launch
-increasing your culture
-set all your cities to wealth,trade all resources, sell all techs,and just sit back looking at your flow of cash
(what about a commercial victory condition?)

and I thought civ wasn't entirely historically correct....

about the seeing allied maps:
nah - don't want to see what they're doing - just want to know their territory - besides, being able to share exploration with your allies will make the game take FOREVER

 

[Machi]

Originally posted by Sabotage
This wouldn't be too realistic. But it could prove very interesting. Nations could opt to be "Mercenary" nations. Hiring out their military to others for gold or technologies.

Yes, exactly. I don't think that Civ3 is about being realistic. Its a model of the world. The map is not the territory.

In any case we all know Civs that are a pain in the ass because they are sooo militarily incline [cough]Zu[cough]lu and they just itch for a fight.

I'm just suggesting this because I think it might throw in a neat little twist to the game. Ofcourse for the AI engine to take advantage of it it would have to be much better than the hamster in a wheel Firaxis has given us right now.

 

[kring]

There have been mercenary states: Swiss, German are two that come easily to mind. Think Hessians during the American Revolutionary War. They were mercs.