The Great Wall

[Bakkslyder]

In MP game, opponent has the Great Wall, which means I cannot attack him. Does this also imply that I have to accept peace from him. I have played that I don't have to accept peace since I am not in democracy. He attacks and I am free to attack him. He offers peace, I don't accept; I still can no longer attack him. I feel this is perfectly fair; definately not the same as glitching when offered peace in democracy. How does everyone else see this. I always play fair and hate to be branded a cheater.

 

[elthrasher]

This has been argued endlessly over at the 2k forum. The glitch is very unfortunate and it's too bad they couldn't plug that hole in patch 1.3.

I never use the glitch under any circumstances. It's clear how the game is meant to work. Against the AI if you have the Great Wall, you can attack, force peace, attack, force peace all day long.

Of course glitching is so common online, if I have the Great Wall, I won't do this unless I know the other player. A lot of the time as soon as you break peace, your GW will be useless for the rest of the game.

So yeah you have to accept peace if you want to be a fair player and play how the game was intended to be played. That you have to use a glitch to avoid peace should be evidence enough of that.

 

[Bakkslyder]

Thanks for the feedback. I always felt that, accepting peace or not, I could not attack and that this was not a glitch at all. But, if that is the general concensus, I will play accordingly.

 

[elthrasher]

I'm not going to claim this was a consensus. I've been involved in several heated discussions on this subject. Some players do feel that the GW shouldn't allow a player to attack and then immediately force peace. But it's clearly meant to allow that.

Anyway, just answer the prompts you get. They are meant to be answered. That's my take on it.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well, I've played very little Civ Rev and I'm terrible at it. I'm not used to the interface and I find it difficult.

That being said, if you have to glitch to do something, it is unfair.

That being said, I don't always play fair myself (Unless I'm playing multi.) In fact, one game I reloaded over 10 times to avoid losing my capital to Ragnar (Chieftain difficulty lol.) So, I have no right (And don't wish to) demand you play fair. But if you're trying to, I'd say don't glitch.

 

[elthrasher]

Well, I've played very little Civ Rev and I'm terrible at it. I'm not used to the interface and I find it difficult.

That being said, if you have to glitch to do something, it is unfair.

That being said, I don't always play fair myself (Unless I'm playing multi.) In fact, one game I reloaded over 10 times to avoid losing my capital to Ragnar (Chieftain difficulty lol.) So, I have no right (And don't wish to) demand you play fair. But if you're trying to, I'd say don't glitch.

We are talking about glitches in online multiplayer. I don't really care what somebody does in the privacy of his own single-player game.

There's no leader named Ragnar in CivRev. Perhaps you're thinking of a different game? Or a different name?

 

[GhostWriter16]

I am not talking about CivRev here. I was simply saying that in one game I'd been playing a good portion of the day, Ragnar attacked me and took my capital. I needed my capital to win that game, so I reloaded continuously until I figured out a strategy that let me keep it.

I personally think the old style of Great Wall itself is cheap. It doesn't force you to make peace in real life, and it is a huge effect for a war-bent player.

I've never played online, but when I play with other humans at home, I play it fair, although I do break my treaties sometimes