CaterpillarKing
Conqueror of Cacoons
I always have a Viking Empire that controls a bit of Spain, a bit of Egypt, Central Asia, maybe some Turkey. It's very strange.
Suggestions and requests
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
I always have a Viking Empire that controls a bit of Spain, a bit of Egypt, Central Asia, maybe some Turkey. It's very strange.
VGL
Deity
Wow,that's weird.and most of my games,ottomans,romans and Byzantine beat the crap out of Persians a lot.i would like too see a stronger persia
Dan Quayle
Chieftain
I haven't found any suggestions on this subject, which is why I dare to suggest it myself :
How about selling weapons ? During my late games, I often end up giving away sometimes massive amounts of weaponry to minor civs that aren't doing too well, or are threatened by total defeat. How about creating an extra incentive, maybe by allowing civs to sell specific types of weapons (missiles, naval units, planes and tanks for example) to less powerful civs once Corporation combined with other industrial/modern techs are discovered ?
A civ would need a certain amount of army units before extras can be sold, this would guarantee stronger civs would sell them to weaker civs. Maybe also determine an amount above which no foreign weapons can be bought.
This would suggest the weaponry would feature in the trading panel once the seller civ activates a "sell" option for its unit and stack it in the capital. Weapons trade would also benefit the relations between civs. I know that a "we are grateful for the ressources you've supplied us with" already exists but its not that determining. Perhaps selling weapons would be a way towards reconciliation, allowing open borders agreements, etc.
...or, stuff countries like Iraq with Scuds for a decade, and then wipe them out with Patriots ?
Most of all a seller would not need to have open borders agreements to sell its weapons in the first place, as its necessary to donate them up to now. May I remind Europe and US secretly sold weapons to Khomeini's Iran in the 1980s, whilst selling weapons to Hussein's Iraq, at a lower price of course for Iraq. Translated in DoC terms, Europe and the US did NOT have open borders with Iran at that time...
Selling weapons to subordinate dictatorships has been a major feature of Western and Russian economic and political control over the world since 1945 and the illusory move towards "decolonization"...Iran/Iraq in the 1980s, and of course all Cold war conflicts are just a few examples.
I hate it as much as I hate slavery, but since we can now play a more historically accurate game by stuffing our civs, one has to admit, with the blood and bones and tears of human beings, I guess it would be even more historically accurate to have these little nations destroy one another with the weapons sold by the world's leading nations and why not, make them profit from it...its disgusting but hey, DoC is about replaying world history and why not, play it better, with ethical choices made available throughout the game.
How about selling weapons ? During my late games, I often end up giving away sometimes massive amounts of weaponry to minor civs that aren't doing too well, or are threatened by total defeat. How about creating an extra incentive, maybe by allowing civs to sell specific types of weapons (missiles, naval units, planes and tanks for example) to less powerful civs once Corporation combined with other industrial/modern techs are discovered ?
A civ would need a certain amount of army units before extras can be sold, this would guarantee stronger civs would sell them to weaker civs. Maybe also determine an amount above which no foreign weapons can be bought.
This would suggest the weaponry would feature in the trading panel once the seller civ activates a "sell" option for its unit and stack it in the capital. Weapons trade would also benefit the relations between civs. I know that a "we are grateful for the ressources you've supplied us with" already exists but its not that determining. Perhaps selling weapons would be a way towards reconciliation, allowing open borders agreements, etc.
...or, stuff countries like Iraq with Scuds for a decade, and then wipe them out with Patriots ?
Most of all a seller would not need to have open borders agreements to sell its weapons in the first place, as its necessary to donate them up to now. May I remind Europe and US secretly sold weapons to Khomeini's Iran in the 1980s, whilst selling weapons to Hussein's Iraq, at a lower price of course for Iraq. Translated in DoC terms, Europe and the US did NOT have open borders with Iran at that time...
Selling weapons to subordinate dictatorships has been a major feature of Western and Russian economic and political control over the world since 1945 and the illusory move towards "decolonization"...Iran/Iraq in the 1980s, and of course all Cold war conflicts are just a few examples.
I hate it as much as I hate slavery, but since we can now play a more historically accurate game by stuffing our civs, one has to admit, with the blood and bones and tears of human beings, I guess it would be even more historically accurate to have these little nations destroy one another with the weapons sold by the world's leading nations and why not, make them profit from it...its disgusting but hey, DoC is about replaying world history and why not, play it better, with ethical choices made available throughout the game.
CaterpillarKing
Conqueror of Cacoons
That would make for a very interesting game. I like that idea. It wouldn't be that difficult and it isn't that revolutionary because mods like Rise of Mankind: A New Dawn do that. It would make for a very interesting game and would help make the stories being made with DoC even better 
The AI could be somehow made to want to help little nations they are allied with. Also funny with your username and post 
The AI could be somehow made to want to help little nations they are allied with. Also funny with your username and post baseballpie
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2012
- Messages
- 2,090
I think it would be a great feature, but I think Leoreth has stated that changes like this are not in his game philosophy.
CaterpillarKing
Conqueror of Cacoons
How so?
baseballpie
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2012
- Messages
- 2,090
I dunno. You'll have to ask Leoreth.
Dan Quayle
Chieftain
Selling fighter planes also avoids giving away techs to build them (and often at a useless production rate), and which minor civ will maybe sell again to other civs, hence thwarting your world tech strategy.
I might add that this wouldn't block the gameflow : it would only concern the later part of a game, since donating units seems to correspond, in Doc terms, to medieval logics rather than modern ones.
Furthermore, aquiring these weapons wouldn't guarantee any stability, and having them would push minor civs to cross the Rubicon faster than by relying on their own army and military production rate.
It can also help regulate the modern world and its ressources. I've noticed its harder (good !) to convince the AI bigger powers to make peace with smaller civs they're about to crush, often they won't even let you buy them out of war ("we'd rather win the game...").
This means this country with which you enjoy a profitable trade with a rare ressource is about to dissapear, and that ressource will soon be at the hands of a wider AI empire you won't have (anymore) ressources to trade with...
This scenario I've mentioned resumes, in DoC game terms, the main reason for modern wars since the end of world European colonization...
One should be able to help this smaller civ attempt to push back the invader or force it to make peace, even if once again no open borders agreement makes donations possible, and one can't make it a vassal, either because you already have 5 or you want to avoid being at war with the invading (nuclear) power. US-Russian and US-Chinese trade didn't stop during the Korean and Vietnam wars...
I might add that this wouldn't block the gameflow : it would only concern the later part of a game, since donating units seems to correspond, in Doc terms, to medieval logics rather than modern ones.
Furthermore, aquiring these weapons wouldn't guarantee any stability, and having them would push minor civs to cross the Rubicon faster than by relying on their own army and military production rate.
It can also help regulate the modern world and its ressources. I've noticed its harder (good !) to convince the AI bigger powers to make peace with smaller civs they're about to crush, often they won't even let you buy them out of war ("we'd rather win the game...").
This means this country with which you enjoy a profitable trade with a rare ressource is about to dissapear, and that ressource will soon be at the hands of a wider AI empire you won't have (anymore) ressources to trade with...
This scenario I've mentioned resumes, in DoC game terms, the main reason for modern wars since the end of world European colonization...
One should be able to help this smaller civ attempt to push back the invader or force it to make peace, even if once again no open borders agreement makes donations possible, and one can't make it a vassal, either because you already have 5 or you want to avoid being at war with the invading (nuclear) power. US-Russian and US-Chinese trade didn't stop during the Korean and Vietnam wars...
Dan Quayle
Chieftain
and finally, the world arms trade is worth roughly 46 billion dollars every year...it makes you gag, but its a fact.
Civilization-wise, I haven't focused on anything for an entire version. The version before that focused on the New World.
Beyond that, my attention is usually roughly evenly divided between the content that is already in the game, which is admittedly Euro-centric.
How about +100% combat strength against Persia?
Sorry to cut this suggestions short here, there are some good ideas and arguments.
My counterpoint consists entirely of suggesting that you take a look at how the slave trade AI currently works. Arms trade, and similarly the recently proposed city trade, is the same thing only 100 times more important and complex. Giving such a tool into the hands of a poor AI, and especially giving such a tool into the hands of a player against a poor AI, will only screw up the game.
VGL
Deity
You're being sarcastic,right?
VGL
Deity
So,were you kidding or not!
CaterpillarKing
Conqueror of Cacoons
Yes, Leoreth is kidding Shame that the AI limitations killed that idea.
Shame that the AI limitations killed that idea.
ezzlar
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Messages
- 1,813
What if the arms trading only was a one-sided trading of human to AI? So what the human can do is support weak nations like a lend-lease. You would get something like minimal pay or just do it for free (without having open borders of being forced to move units there manually).
Or would that ruin the whole idea? WW2 is an example where the US donated tons of equipment to the Soviets to help them in the war effort.
Or would that ruin the whole idea? WW2 is an example where the US donated tons of equipment to the Soviets to help them in the war effort.
mrrandomplayer
Hopeless Situation Warrior
I quote myself here because I think it got lost in later posts and I'm curious to hear what Leoreth thinks of this.
mrrandomplayer
Hopeless Situation Warrior
Yes, if my city were in contested area and were surrounded by contested tiles, then I would agree with you, but the city is founded in my core and I am losing my own core tiles to a vastly culturally weaker civ.
CaterpillarKing
Conqueror of Cacoons
Because science has not yet been able to make a human that small. To be honest that would be easier than the perfect AI.
Similar threads
