right of passage

[jimkirk]

or whatever its called i was hoping that in civ 4 2 civs can negotiate what kinds of units have right of passage through my territory i was hoping that we will be able to negotiate whether only civilian units i.e. workers and non military or is it like civ 3 and any units regardless if military or not

but i think it would be a great idea if we could seperately negotiate whether if regular civilian units and/or military

 

[jimkirk]

anyone agree or disagree?

 

[mikehunt]

I like that idea.
maybe even add distinctions between mainly attack or mainly defense units

 

[searcheagle]

or whatever its called i was hoping that in civ 4 2 civs can negotiate what kinds of units have right of passage through my territory i was hoping that we will be able to negotiate whether only civilian units i.e. workers and non military or is it like civ 3 and any units regardless if military or not

but i think it would be a great idea if we could seperately negotiate whether if regular civilian units and/or military

If you limited the civilian units to Worker and explorer type units. Settlers in Civ 2 were classified as civilian units (There was such a distinction in that Game) and they gave rise to the Assault Settler- sneak your settler into enemy territory and build a city and gain territory in that way.

That would be a good way to limit the scope of a ROP.

 

[apatheist]

Another way to control rights of passage better is to be able to make agreements for only parts of an empire rather than the whole. The easiest way to manage that is to allow right of passage per city. So rather than negotiating with the Zulus to allow them to pass through your whole empire, you could grant them right of passage only through the city radii of Sparta, Corinth, and Thebes, which is sufficient to get them to the Egyptians, but not grant them right of passage for Athens, Syracuse, Rhodes, and the rest of your empire.

 

[jimkirk]

even if they sneak a assault settler in its easy to isolate and overtake the city in civ 4 through religion or other means i think giving a civ means to limit what type of unit passes is good of course civs can allow military too if they really get along or if they have military alliance or mutual agreement

 

[Poseidon_55]

you should be able to have lets your tanks need to pass some emeny terrotory so they need 3 turns to do it so u ask if those tanks can enter their territory for 3 turns

 

[warpstorm]

All or none. Anything else will just end up being an exploit as writing an AI to figure out how you are planning to bend the rules of the treaty (and you know you are because a bunch of the suggestions were all geared towards "how do I get what I want without giving the AI anything useful") will be too hard.

 

[apatheist]

Warpstorm, I think you are letting hypothetical AI limitations dictate too much. We don't know how good the AI will be. Furthermore, civ4 will have multiplayer.

I think there's lots of historical precedent for selective RoP. Maybe it shouldn't get down to the unit type, but by general unit class seems ok (military, exploration, artillery, naval, worker/settler, etc.). I think there's good precedent and justification for per-city RoP also.

 

[bundy]

good idea, it would be also good if you could agree way where other units can move

 

[Bluemofia]

Maybe make the deals be limited more, so you can set the amount of time they last, like have ROP for 12 turns only, MPP for at least 30 turns, MA against the French until they are destroyed, etc.

 

[warpstorm]

I think there's good precedent and justification...

What is the justification other than you are trying to trick the AI?

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

You may want to move number of units across a country to get at 2-3 cities on the other side of a civ who you are at war with. Maybe there could be a pathing system - after negotiations, you click on the tile where you want to go and your units begin to follow the shortest route there. If you cancel orders while in the ROP civ, next turn you are ordered to leave, but can choose your exit tile. As in civ2, sneak attack with an allied/ROP civ is simply not allowed.

Alternatively - an unlimited time ROP could be negotiated - but only for a limited number of units, say 3-5. These could park anywhere in the ROP civ, but you could not move any more in - the game wouldn't let you, unless you declare war.

 

[apatheist]

What is the justification other than you are trying to trick the AI?

I'm not trying to trick the AI. In fact, you could argue that this helps the AI because it would be harder to take advantage of it and sneak attack. There are numerous real world examples of being selective with these privileges. US troops are stationed in Turkey, but Turkey did not allow the US to invade Iraq from Turkey. Egypt will allow US, French, Chinese, Indian, and whoever through the Suez Canal, but they're not going to let the First Armored Division go camping at the Pyramids. Then, as a counter-example, there was the disastrous Fourth Crusade that, instead of going on to Palestine, sacked Constantinople.

 

[searcheagle]

The justification is that they would be a middle ground between no troops on your territory (an inherently risky deal) and allowing no troops on your land (impractical at times.) This is worth doing.

 

[Illuminatiscott]

This could go hand in hand with the "territories" thread, where you could potentially divide your land up into territories, and give the other player RoP through just 1 or 2 territories.

 

[apatheist]

This could go hand in hand with the "territories" thread, where you could potentially divide your land up into territories, and give the other player RoP through just 1 or 2 territories.

It could, but I don't want to tie two proposed features together that don't have to be connected. Also, it's likely that the cities that you'd want to grant RoP for wouldn't be in a single region. The other civ would want RoP across a band of your territory, but you're not likely to break your civ up into stripes; you're going to have a different set of territories.