square sharing between units

[redstang423]

I think a square should be able to be shared by civilizations in peace. It gets very frustrating sometimes when I can't move along my OWN road because another civ has a worker or troop there, even under right of passage agreements. I guess I could see not allowing the end of movement to be on the same square (although I still think it should under peace terms), but at least allow for the passage through squares occupied by another civ. If war breaks out while the two civs are on the same square, they simply instantly do battle, or capture the troops or whatever. Workers should always be able to share squares.

 

[searcheagle]

Good idea. It would also solve the problem about who's square it would become in a war.

 

[Theoden]

The idea of moving through is good. It would however be harder to make units be able to end at the same square. If another natoin attacks who will defend. If one of them is at war with another civ they can just hide behind anothers units and will be safe there.

 

[searcheagle]

These problems with this can be solve very easily by the programers. We don't have to think of all answers- We are paying the developers for their ideas right?

 

[redstang423]

The idea of moving through is good. It would however be harder to make units be able to end at the same square. If another natoin attacks who will defend. If one of them is at war with another civ they can just hide behind anothers units and will be safe there.

good points. if they are on the same square and the civs go to war, one of two things could happen...one, neither would be considered attackers and defenders and just do straight combat based on numbers, not bonuses, or two, the attacking civ is considered the one who declared war.

as far as hiding behind other civs, that could be fine, but your cities cant hide, and if all your units are hiding behind another civ, you wont be able to defend your cities as well. and i dont know if you've noticed, but especially at the harder difficulties, the AI always knows which cities are defended lightest, even before they research espionage, and attacks those first.

 

[ybbor]

no you missunderstood him. he's saying if im china, allied with japan against france, and france attacks a square that both me and japan have the same unit which unit defends against france's attack

 

[Vizurok]

no you missunderstood him. he's saying if im china, allied with japan against france, and france attacks a square that both me and japan have the same unit which unit defends against france's attack

Well, it's a good question. No logical answer, just a rule... the home unit gets attacked...(as in Battle of Dunkirk) or the foreigner...

 

[ybbor]

what if they're in unowned territory?

 

[Cuivienen]

Maybe it should be solved in a similar manner to SMAc, where there were Truces, Treaties and Pacts of Brotherhood. A Truce meant you weren't at war. A Treaty allowed trade. A Pact increased trade, allowed you to view what the other civ was building, shared maps, and allowed the two civs to share tiles. (Pacts were also somewhat like MPP, though you didn't have to declare on your Pact Brother's enemy.) In SMAC, the unit with the highest defense guarded unless otherwise designated.

 

[brinko]

i dont like this, sometimes i will be between 2 countries who are at war with eachother.
they both will cross my borders with "rop" freely, yet as soon as one country starts kicking the other badly, i line my borders with artillery, intervening the best way i can without declaring war. it is usually in my best interest to keep them dueling yet not have one eliminate the other. with the controling of the square totally i can do this efficiently. i can even have it so all battles are placed in my territory and if one group of units are strong and massive, i could trapp them, and save them for later, even when having "rop".

so i vote no on the share same square
part of the game is adapting to the pieces of the board.

 

[Synergy67]

I think sharing spaces with friendly troops is necessary in some way. It is ridiculous to think a friendly neighbor settler is going by so I can't send my spearman down my own road for ten years or however long the turn represents at that point.

In the event of a third party unit attacking that square, the third party nation has declared war on one or both nations occupying that square. Any nation not being warred upon by the attacker is neutral and ignored. If the attacker wins the battle and moves onto the square, it is now sharing the square with the neutral unit(s) just as I was previously.

The attacking unit could ONLY attack a shared square if it 1) is declaring war on both or all nations occupying that square, or 2) if it has ROP with the unit(s) it is not attacking.

A little odd, but I think necessary to make the building of roads everywhere less necessary (which is unrealistic and boring), and to minimize the frustration factor of the game (always a good idea).

Doug

 

[searcheagle]

i dont like this, sometimes i will be between 2 countries who are at war with eachother.
they both will cross my borders with "rop" freely, yet as soon as one country starts kicking the other badly, i line my borders with artillery, intervening the best way i can without declaring war. it is usually in my best interest to keep them dueling yet not have one eliminate the other. with the controling of the square totally i can do this efficiently. i can even have it so all battles are placed in my territory and if one group of units are strong and massive, i could trapp them, and save them for later, even when having "rop".

so i vote no on the share same square
part of the game is adapting to the pieces of the board.

Square sharing units could be a higher leveler diplomcatic agreement. There would be regular ROP, and higher level called something which would block that. THere should the ability to cancel the agreement without going to war or limit ROP to certain zones.

 

[Theoden]

Square sharing units could be a higher leveler diplomcatic agreement. There would be regular ROP, and higher level called something which would block that. THere should the ability to cancel the agreement without going to war or limit ROP to certain zones.

Let's assume that two civs have a high level ROP and are standing on the same square. One of them cancels the high level ROP but doesn't declare war. What happens to the units sharing the tile?

 

[The Last Conformist]

In SMAC, your units could occupy the same tile as those of your Pact Brothers/Sisters (essentially the same as CivII "Alliance" - a kind of cooperation treaty), and even move thru their cities. And yes, you could park a gazillion of your tanks in your Pact Brother/Sister's capital - they'd autoteleport to your turf if the Pact was anulled (which was a necessary prereq for declaring war on them). Apart from allowing you easily to cross your partner's territory, it also meant you could use your ally's harbours, and base aircraft in their cities.

I'd rather like if some similar diplomatic state was included in CivIV.

 

[rhialto]

The smac pact also meant you could defend your allies' cities if he was utter crap, maybe to preserve the balance of power while you gear up to take over proprly.

 

[Synergy67]

If you think about it, it is odd to have a world in which no nation can send any kind of human being into another nation's city and have any idea what exists in it (apart from wonders). Seems like explorers or tourists or merchants or some kind of neutral unit would be able to wander into a friendly country's city and visit the library.

Maybe the Civ IV crew will think about seriously rethinking the city concept, the idea of immigrants between cities and nations, ROP and other diplomatic issues. Hope so.

 

[searcheagle]

If you think about it, it is odd to have a world in which no nation can send any kind of human being into another nation's city and have any idea what exists in it (apart from wonders). Seems like explorers or tourists or merchants or some kind of neutral unit would be able to wander into a friendly country's city and visit the library.

Maybe the Civ IV crew will think about seriously rethinking the city concept, the idea of immigrants between cities and nations, ROP and other diplomatic issues. Hope so.

Especially in the era of mass media in democracies, where newspapers publicize everything. This should be included into espionage. There is surprising a lot of espionage done through media sources.

 

[rhialto]

Wasn't it Stalin who said he had no need of spies when the west has nwspapers?