Unit bans after wars?

t3h_m013

Prince
Joined
Apr 9, 2004
Messages
481
in the same way that germany had large military bans put on them after WWI it could become part of peace talks. and also maybe unilateral/multi lateral nuclear disarmament?

as with most of my ideas not sure how it would work... feel free to flame this idea to bits, im not sure bout it.
 

Chieftess

Moderator
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 10, 2002
Messages
24,160
Location
Baltimore
You could have something like forcing a civ to not build military units. Although, this could be exploited in such a way that you can build better units at will, while the AI is forced to build only improvements, wonders, or wealth. (essentially becoming a puppet-state). Just go to war with a few civs early on, and demand that the civ not build any units during peace. You could expand quite rapidly that way.
 

collin_stp

Warlord
Joined
Jan 15, 2004
Messages
116
Location
Athens, Greece
well, this could be exploited only if the AI is not smart enough, just like in early CIV3, when the AI would trade cities with you. If you forced something like a 20 turn no-unit build, which could act as a trade goal as well, and you still had a good rep (maybe even never declaring war, only declared on you), maybe it could be something the AI would accept to keep from being annihilated, just like getting all of their techs or a few cities when you dominate a war. Don't know if it will increase the enjoyability of the game, but something in which you had treaties that could be mutual that would keep from building too large of a military may add an extra dimension to the game.
 

Karsinogeeni

Chieftain
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Messages
5
To put this simply: Agreements with state maximum number of land/air/sea military units. This could be always same to both participants. The point of these agreements would be to keep military costs low without having to be afraid of military buildup next door.
 

t3h_m013

Prince
Joined
Apr 9, 2004
Messages
481
yea... i think if they made it so AI only signed single disarmement only after loosing a war or mutual disarmement then it would be hard to exploit. same way trading cities is hard to exploit.
 

Suki

you will get nothing
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
509
Location
canada
there's no need to be so restrictive about it,
how about no tracked vechules or deployments outside of their terratory, like japan?
not building anything sounds like a good way to have a third party sweep through and whipe you out.
 

t3h_m013

Prince
Joined
Apr 9, 2004
Messages
481
make a similar treaty with the 3rd party?
guess this is why the nuclear disarmament thing is so tricky :p
 
Top Bottom