Refuses to Talk

[Seuss]

in my current game i was attacking ragnar, when i had demolished 3/4 of his cities (checking every turn to see if he would capitulate) mansa musa declared war on me, i then noticed that ragnar had been vassalized by mansa musa instead of me, this is annoying, but it happens, i finished off ragnar and have been attempting to make peace with mansa musa, he was cautious with me before he declared war, so i didn't think it would be that hard, but for about 20 turns now he has been refusing to talk, i thought that generally only lasted about 3-4 turns, so my economy is being destroyed by war unhappiness when all i want to do is expand the culture of ragnar's cities for the domination win, is this sort of long-term refusal to talk normal?


I apologize for the wall of text.

 

[Bigv32]

Man you must have ticked him off. It could be that you finished off his vassal, but did you do anything to him during the war (raze mansa's cities, pillige, war alliance)? These could all add up. Also, is this a custom game with aggressice AI? 40 refusal to talk is a while. In my experience, the only time an AI refuses to talk after a while is when I agreed to stop trading with them. This usually last for five to ten turns, but if you get another AI to stop trading every four turns, the time would add up.

As for your economy, if you have a tech lead, cut that, and add it to culture. Also, switch production from units in your hardest hit cities to buildings for happiness. Try for theaters because their cheap and are affected by culture slider. Another idea is (if you can or can afford to), try to get Notra Dame. By the time you build it, your cities by have 2 more unhappy people, but it could help. Finnally, again if you can and have the resources, try to get an easy vassal. It may not be much, but one happy face can have a huge affect on an empire. Hope this helps.

 

[manu-fan]

That's the exact reason I play with Vassals turned off these days. I just can't stand the vassalising to someone else and immediately being at war with them.

Cheers.

 

[Seuss]

thanks for the advice, after another 10ish turns he finally agreed to talk and i got a peace treaty, i actually never assaulted a city of his, i did ask someone to stop trading with him, but that was a long time ago, i finally got a win the turn the peace treaty ended, i had about 70% of the land area and 62% population and i took a size 12 sparsely defended island city from him and got the win

when he first declared on me it was devastating, i had 15 war weariness in many cities, which destroyed my economy, and i was running an SE and had to switch to police state to halve the weariness, which of course halved my research

 

[TheDS]

IME you have to go do something to them or they'll just take longer to want to talk. If they have nothing to talk about, why should they bother? So they won't.

Once you finished off your primary enemy (Ragnar), your WW should've gone down significantly. You only accrue WW when you're fighting outside your land, so if you weren't doing anything to Mansa, then you should've had no WW (or possibly a little residual from Ragnar). This could possibly work differently for vassals.

That's the exact reason I play with Vassals turned off these days. I just can't stand the vassalising to someone else and immediately being at war with them.

This is a sure sign of a weak player; if something like this is capable of bothering you, then you're doing things wrong.

Expect the unexpected: If you have to send absolutely everything but the city garrisons to fight your war, leaving nothing behind to deal with the unexpected counterattacks or someone INTELLIGENTLY taking advantage of your weakness/preoccupation, then you shouldn't have been going to war in the first place. Don't YOU do things like this to THEM? Then stop whining about them doing it to you.

Overbuild: If you don't have enough forces to wipe them out quickly, you shouldn't be at war. Having sufficient force means you hit them harder and faster so they have less time to respond or call war allies AND it means that if someone backstabs you, you've got forces still sitting around back home doing nothing.

 

[TabascoBob]

This is a sure sign of a weak player; if something like this is capable of bothering you, then you're doing things wrong.

Expect the unexpected: If you have to send absolutely everything but the city garrisons to fight your war, leaving nothing behind to deal with the unexpected counterattacks or someone INTELLIGENTLY taking advantage of your weakness/preoccupation, then you shouldn't have been going to war in the first place. Don't YOU do things like this to THEM? Then stop whining about them doing it to you.

Overbuild: If you don't have enough forces to wipe them out quickly, you shouldn't be at war. Having sufficient force means you hit them harder and faster so they have less time to respond or call war allies AND it means that if someone backstabs you, you've got forces still sitting around back home doing nothing.[/QUOTE]


This seems like an unreasonably harsh/aggressive reply. Any particular reason for lashing out with the insults? Not a lot of helpful content, just bashing- kind of makes you look like a weak person, as opposed to a superior player.

 

[TheDS]

Most of the time when someone tells me I've been unnecessarily rude, when I re-read what I said, I can see their point. This time, however, I still see a constructive criticism. I didn't tell him he sucked, or that he should run home to mama, or even that he should take the game back to the store because he would never grasp the concept of Civ4.

Instead, I explained the common mistakes he was likely suffering from and how he could avoid them and improve his game, and if done reasonably well, he'd never have that particular problem again. In extreme cases, he might like Vassals as anyone else does.

I'm definitely going with "the tone you read came from your head" on this one. Maybe I could've thrown a few smilies in there?

 

[SirLamphead]

thanks for the advice, after another 10ish turns he finally agreed to talk and i got a peace treaty, i actually never assaulted a city of his, i did ask someone to stop trading with him, but that was a long time ago, i finally got a win the turn the peace treaty ended, i had about 70% of the land area and 62% population and i took a size 12 sparsely defended island city from him and got the win

when he first declared on me it was devastating, i had 15 war weariness in many cities, which destroyed my economy, and i was running an SE and had to switch to police state to halve the weariness, which of course halved my research

What civics were you running?
Why not switch to Police State, Nationhood, State Property, and Theocracy. Usually War weariness is a thing of the past with those civics. It may have taken 2 or 3 turns to revolt to those but it is a lot better than 20 crappy turns.

 

[DaveMcW]

when he first declared on me it was devastating, i had 15 war weariness in many cities, which destroyed my economy, and i was running an SE and had to switch to police state to halve the weariness, which of course halved my research

Increase the culture slider instead of switching to police state.

 

[Kevie]

Well. they refuse to talk if they are alot stronger than you. I mean, if you got the smallest army, and you wanted to talk to the guy you're at war with who has twice the army of you, you dont have much of a leverage.

 

[mirthadir]

Most of the time when someone tells me I've been unnecessarily rude, when I re-read what I said, I can see their point. This time, however, I still see a constructive criticism. I didn't tell him he sucked, or that he should run home to mama, or even that he should take the game back to the store because he would never grasp the concept of Civ4.

Instead, I explained the common mistakes he was likely suffering from and how he could avoid them and improve his game, and if done reasonably well, he'd never have that particular problem again. In extreme cases, he might like Vassals as anyone else does.

I'm definitely going with "the tone you read came from your head" on this one. Maybe I could've thrown a few smilies in there?

Actually no. Overbuilding is a surefire way to lose wars. Unless you are playing epic or marathon; by the time you "overbuild" enough to make sure that the AIs with their massive bonuses aren't going to have large enough armies to vassalize in preference to you, the moment will have passed; especially if you've swapped out of good civics like Rep, CS, FM, or FR to get on war footing; you may never recover from "winning" your war. You win by being there the firstest with the mostest of the bestest; normally you can pick only 2 of those and game mechanics make first and best better than most and anything else.

The real problem is not having insufficient troops to hold you own land; it is that AIs with whom you have decent relations will vassalize your target in the midst of your war - even if they are not at war. The whole point of historical capitulation was so that the enemy at the gates wouldn't kill you wholesale. You will be quite hard pressed to find actual examples of states capitulating to a third party in the midst of wars (as opposed to after a peace or ceasefire is signed).

It would be one thing if this sort of thing could happen with the player swooping in and getting free vassal, but I've never had the offer made, even when I'm the clear hegemon and leading in all demographic categories. Likewise it would also be another thing if the AI was intelligent about this, but far too often they will take on a vassal only to be destroyed in turn.

Face facts it is annoying, even when you have the means to eradicate the AI. It is also ahistorical, and your "solution" is far inferior to simply trading space for time in most cases.

 

[Joe R. Golowka]

You will be quite hard pressed to find actual examples of states capitulating to a third party in the midst of wars (as opposed to after a peace or ceasefire is signed).

Cuba became the USSR's vassal when the US blockaded it after the Revolution. This kind of thing is at least as common as a spearman defeating a tank. When an AI becomes a vassal to a third party it doesn't "capitulate" and the result is that this voluntary vassalization is much easier for them to get out of (and I have seen the AI leave once they don't need the master's protection anymore).

It would be one thing if this sort of thing could happen with the player swooping in and getting free vassal, but I've never had the offer made, even when I'm the clear hegemon and leading in all demographic categories.

It's happened to me. The last time Jao was having his ass kicked by a coalition of several AIs and turned to me for protection. If he hadn't he would have been destroyed.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I don't mind civs vassaling to powerhouses for protection at that the player is at peace with. What really pisses me off hardcore is when I'm at war with a target, my ally is at war with the target, I have the highest power rating of the 3, and our target vassals to MY ALLY. I had this happen once and got so mad that since I was on a low difficulty I wiped out the civ that capitulated to someone other than me completely ignoring the fact that this meant war with my ally.

Then...I systematically took every one of my ally's coastal cities and razed them instantly after doing so. I burned everything to the ground, only keeping the sorry capitol, which I renamed to something that would get me warned by moderators to say. Then, I won the UN.

It makes no sense when they vassal to allies - it would make more sense if I had a LOWER power rating than my ally, OR IF MY ALLY EVEN SET FOOT ON THE ENEMY SOIL EVER.

 

[Stewie0416]

The same thing happened to me once. I was playing warlord cause it was my first time trying SE ( hard, so much micro). I almost wiped out the british in a Modern war with Mod armor and mechs when suddenly Church get vassalized by Kublai in the south. The thing is that Kub was behind and still had riflemen against me tanks and still didnt talk (WW was up to 15-17, UN resolution blocked PS)!!! Now im afraid of wars....

 

[mirthadir]

Cuba became the USSR's vassal when the US blockaded it after the Revolution. This kind of thing is at least as common as a spearman defeating a tank. When an AI becomes a vassal to a third party it doesn't "capitulate" and the result is that this voluntary vassalization is much easier for them to get out of (and I have seen the AI leave once they don't need the master's protection anymore).

Cuba was the USSR's vassal before the blockade, the blockade occurred because Kruschev was annoyed during his Black Sea Holiday that the Americans had missiles in Turkey just a quick hop over the water and elected to return the favor.

Castro was already lock, stock, and barrel beholden to the USSR which was buying Cuban sugar at an idiotically inflated rate. So much so that the entire foreign policy of Cuba was decided in Moscow rather Havana.

If the AI does beg the player for protection, that might change things. As it stands, in my experience, its just a very annoying bug that the AI will capitulate to anyone but you, and that the other AIs will accept a war which is CLEARLY in their worst interests.

 

[Mack_Jagger]

Refuse to talk can cause other issues and I consider this a bug. I’m sharing borders with Monty, gearing up for war. We are both buddhist. Bismarck, the leading Hindu, demands that I brake contact with Monty. I’m allready moving my troops to a hill near the Aztec border so why not? I accept, gain some diplo points with the hindu block and Monty gets all grumpy and refuse to talk. This leads to that I can’t declare war on him. My catapults are placed on a hill on my side of the border, but are right next to one of Montys cities. But since I can’t declare the option to bombard city defences isn't there. I have to sacrafice a catapult to get the war started. And THEN taking down his defences. Not a major thing, but annoying non the less.

 

[Bostock]

Then...I systematically took every one of my ally's coastal cities and razed them instantly after doing so. I burned everything to the ground, only keeping the sorry capitol, which I renamed to something that would get me warned by moderators to say. Then, I won the UN.

Who says Civ isn't like real life?!

 

[Firewind]

Refuse to talk can cause other issues and I consider this a bug. I’m sharing borders with Monty, gearing up for war. We are both buddhist. Bismarck, the leading Hindu, demands that I brake contact with Monty. I’m allready moving my troops to a hill near the Aztec border so why not? I accept, gain some diplo points with the hindu block and Monty gets all grumpy and refuse to talk. This leads to that I can’t declare war on him. My catapults are placed on a hill on my side of the border, but are right next to one of Montys cities. But since I can’t declare the option to bombard city defences isn't there. I have to sacrafice a catapult to get the war started. And THEN taking down his defences. Not a major thing, but annoying non the less.

You could've just held Alt and clicked his name, to declare war straight off. That would've saved you the catapult, though... it's a freaking catapult, you were probably going to suicide it anyway, so there's not exactly a lot to complain about.

Regardless, this is less a bug and more an unintuitive interface - if you knew how, you could've declared anyway.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You could've just held Alt and clicked his name, to declare war straight off. That would've saved you the catapult, though... it's a freaking catapult, you were probably going to suicide it anyway, so there's not exactly a lot to complain about.

Regardless, this is less a bug and more an unintuitive interface - if you knew how, you could've declared anyway.

I use alt to declare pretty much exclusively now. Be careful though - if the system lags a bit you can declare by accident even when you're not still hitting alt (one of the reasons I feel justified reloading in - declaring war when trying to trade ). This can also annoyingly bring up the trade screen by accident if the system thinks you're hitting control (although that's often why I contact the AI but still).

@ Bostock:

.

 

[Mack_Jagger]

You could've just held Alt and clicked his name, to declare war straight off. That would've saved you the catapult, though... it's a freaking catapult, you were probably going to suicide it anyway, so there's not exactly a lot to complain about.

Regardless, this is less a bug and more an unintuitive interface - if you knew how, you could've declared anyway.

Hey, god to know. And yeah, that catapult would've been toast anyway.