1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Photobucket has changed its policy concerning hotlinking images and now requires an account with a $399.00 annual fee to allow hotlink. More information is available at: this link.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Dismiss Notice
  7. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

War cancels deals?

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Archon_Wing, Sep 24, 2017.

  1. Archon_Wing

    Archon_Wing Vote for me or die

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,173
    Gender:
    Male
    Which makes me think. What's to stop you from trading some GPT or a resource for 30 turns for like a great work or straight up gold and then declaring war immediately afterwards? Maybe I should remember to do that before I go to a war.
     
  2. Forster

    Forster Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2005
    Messages:
    185
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Columbus, GA
    Which is why I think there ought to be a minimum number of turns before you can declare war after a deal is made. Or, if not that, a massive hit to your relations with other civs for being an untrustworthy back-stabber.
     
  3. Archon_Wing

    Archon_Wing Vote for me or die

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,173
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, I figured there might be two ways.

    One is just that the GPT you offered is simply lost and any resources you offered for trade are inactive for the remainder of the deal (nobody's gonna take that stuff, and maybe the otherside won't give it back). Of course great works and cities you got, I have no idea

    The other is as you suggested would be a global diplomatic malus that you are untrustworthy and other civs are hesitant to deal with you, or it'd be funny if they told you only prefer payments straight up, lol.
     
  4. bbbt

    bbbt Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2013
    Messages:
    886
    This has always been an issue(or common exploit) in Civ as far as I remember. I believe in 5 they required you to have a declaration of friendship with a civ before doing lump sum trades of cash, to try and limit it a bit.
     
  5. Archon_Wing

    Archon_Wing Vote for me or die

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,173
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, in 4, GPT was really only for peace treaties and resources. AI mostly took everything else for lump sums. Deals only lasted for 10 turns though.

    5 AIs humorously would go to war with someone else for like 3 gpt. Which is very exploitable.
     
  6. Michkov

    Michkov Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,149
    You can't end the deal for the first 10 turns, but there is no upper bound to how long they'll last.
     
  7. Archon_Wing

    Archon_Wing Vote for me or die

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,173
    Gender:
    Male
    Right, that wasn't well worded.

    Deals didn't have to be renewed but could be cancelled arbitrarily after 10 turns.

    I would have much preferred Civ 5's way of them reminding you a deal had to be renewed. I don't remember half the deals I make in this game.
     
  8. stinkubus

    stinkubus Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2016
    Messages:
    454
    The same or another AI will solicit another trade within a turn or two of the deal ending.
     
    Leyrann likes this.
  9. Monthar

    Monthar Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    1,864
    Location:
    Elmendorf, Tx
    What if trade deals were tied to the CB system? By this I mean if you have an active trade deal you can't declare a surprise war on that civ and you can't make a trade deal with a civ you've denounced or has denounced you. Thus you would be forced to have the trade active for a minimum of 5 turns before you could go to war. Which means you'd have to make the trade deal then denounce them. Then the warmonger penalties would make it more likely for the other civs to denounce you, thus preventing new trade deal with them until you've improved the relationship enough to not be denounced by those civs.
     
    Olleus likes this.
  10. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    4,301
    That's exploitable also, here is some mercury, gimme 200 gold and I'll send it to you for 30 turns..... I promise....
     
  11. Archon_Wing

    Archon_Wing Vote for me or die

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,173
    Gender:
    Male
    Ah, well, in that case, it was for things like change government and techs; there were very little things that were based on turn, besides peace deals which mostly couldn't be broken. They would never take gpt for a tech for example like how you can for a great work in 6.

    The main exploit here is that 5 gpt for 30 turns isn't the same as having to pay 150 gold upfront.
     
  12. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    4,301
    I believe if a civ is not your friend they should only give GPT for your goods and only accept lump sums for theirs with a stronger chance to act this way as friendship is coming to an end.

    I have bought cities off civs for GPT before going to war, it's just bad, especially as England when you get a free redcoat in it.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2017
  13. SammyKhalifa

    SammyKhalifa Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Messages:
    2,349
    Seems to me like 4 had the most exploitable trade deals of all if I recall . . .
     
  14. Karpius

    Karpius Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    71
    Try to look at it in the historical sense....

    Many a war was started over broken trade deals (treaties). The exploitive aspect of making an advantageous deal right before declaring war sort of fits in with real world politics. Just ask the Native Americans! Or pretty much any other group throughout history.

    Broken treaties are an equal opportunity offense.
     
  15. Rosty K

    Rosty K Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2017
    Messages:
    422
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, a deal that was broken because of the war can't be a reason for the war (as the war is already there). There should be a diplomatic penalty for doing that though (as if anyone cares anyway).
     
  16. Archon_Wing

    Archon_Wing Vote for me or die

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,173
    Gender:
    Male
    Tech trading, maybe, but that was more of it being an inherently flawed system rather than the deals as they'd generally never give you a fair trade (for you) as well as the irrationality of the AI to not.

    It probably would have made more sense to disable tech brokering by default.

    Regardless though I think it'd be better to only allow GPT for resources and peace deals. (Later is pretty obvious)
     

Share This Page