Wow, THAT was gamey...

[Takagi Hiro]

So. I trade for one of Attila's cities, offering some large amount of GPT and three luxuries, and he agrees... and then I go and declare war on the same turn. Thanks for the free city?

Obviously, that's terribly lame. Can we have some sort of "can't declare war for X turns" after a city trade? I'm almost laughing at how easy that was, but I'm crying instead, since I should know better. As always, yes, the player can prevent this exploit from happening by simply not doing it, but this is a pretty huge one that I'd like to see balanced through some means...

 

[Deadstarre]

Lmao. He better tell the other world leaders about you =)

 

[Gazebo]

So. I trade for one of Attila's cities, offering some large amount of GPT and three luxuries, and he agrees... and then I go and declare war on the same turn. Thanks for the free city?

Obviously, that's terribly lame. Can we have some sort of "can't declare war for X turns" after a city trade? I'm almost laughing at how easy that was, but I'm crying instead, since I should know better. As always, yes, the player can prevent this exploit from happening by simply not doing it, but this is a pretty huge one that I'd like to see balanced through some means...

The AI can do the same to you. Considering that you have to be friends to even approach this, you're flirting with diplomatic disaster to do stuff like that.

And no, I'm not going to add an obscure rule like that, as it'll just lead to people asking me why they can't do it.

G

 

[Takagi Hiro]

The AI can do the same to you. Considering that you have to be friends to even approach this, you're flirting with diplomatic disaster to do stuff like that.

And no, I'm not going to add an obscure rule like that, as it'll just lead to people asking me why they can't do it.

G

We weren't friends, though. No declaration of friendship. I literally took no diplomatic penalty from this "exchange."

 

[Gazebo]

We weren't friends, though. No declaration of friendship. I literally took no diplomatic penalty from this "exchange."

Or so you think. The AI can lie to you.

G

 

[Takagi Hiro]

Or so you think. The AI can lie to you.

G

Let's just say the penalty was much less severe than taking the city outright. Essentially all that the world noticed was my declaration of war, which, as discussed in the warmonger thread, doesn't amount for much. No one in the world cared what I did. And this is okay to you? There was no declaration of friendship... just a positive modifier for a common enemy. Literally nothing was lost from what I did... except for that positive modifier, of course.

 

[Wodhann]

If this already doesn't happen (I don't know because I don't generally buy cities from others players), I feel that selling a city should put it in resistance AND demand a courthouse to be built (depending on influence), just like taking one. I mean it's not like the people will appreciate having their city sold off to someone else.

This won't stop this kind of thing, but will be a bump in the road.

 

[callmewoof]

This 'trick' is something you can do in Vanilla as well. However, as Gazebo was hinting, the diplomatic consequences are more real than you think. If you play with the Transparent Diplomacy advanced setting option, you'll see the truth behind your AI "buddies". They aren't telling you, but they hate that you backstab trade agreements, lie, etc, and those modifiers can be the tipping point between staying friends and "arrgh freaking AI just DoW'd me for no reason we're friends wtf".

 

[Funak]

If this already doesn't happen (I don't know because I don't generally buy cities from others players), I feel that selling a city should put it in resistance AND demand a courthouse to be built (depending on influence), just like taking one. I mean it's not like the people will appreciate having their city sold off to someone else.

I think it does, I've seem AI traded cities in resistance, and occupied, which means they would need courthouses.

 

[Takagi Hiro]

If this already doesn't happen (I don't know because I don't generally buy cities from others players), I feel that selling a city should put it in resistance AND demand a courthouse to be built (depending on influence), just like taking one. I mean it's not like the people will appreciate having their city sold off to someone else.

This won't stop this kind of thing, but will be a bump in the road.

This does happen, but as the city was very small, the resistance was short. It didn't amount for much time lost.

This 'trick' is something you can do in Vanilla as well. However, as Gazebo was hinting, the diplomatic consequences are more real than you think. If you play with the Transparent Diplomacy advanced setting option, you'll see the truth behind your AI "buddies". They aren't telling you, but they hate that you backstab trade agreements, lie, etc, and those modifiers can be the tipping point between staying friends and "arrgh freaking AI just DoW'd me for no reason we're friends wtf".

I do use transparent diplomacy, and I'm not seeing anything that hints Attila is irritated with me. Just a -10 for territorial disputes.

 

[Edaka]

Wasn't this exactly the problem when you could trade lump sums of gold with non-friends? You could trade 300 gold for a luxury, declare war immediately and have both the gold and your luxury back. What OP described in his post, basically. That's why it is now only possible to trade lump sums of gold with friends as, of course, declaring a war on a friends will result in major global opinion backlash, not just a (hidden) negative modifier with the target civ.

I wonder if applying this type of logic to city trades is possible and if it would make the mechanic less cheesier. Also, it would make city exchanges less frequent overall - a change that many would appreciate, I assume, seeing all the recent discontent with the mechanic.

 

[Deadstarre]

Wasn't this exactly the problem when you could trade lump sums of gold with non-friends? You could trade 300 gold for a luxury, declare war immediately and have both the gold and your luxury back. What OP described in his post, basically. That's why it is now only possible to trade lump sums of gold with friends as, of course, declaring a war on a friends will result in major global opinion backlash, not just a (hidden) negative modifier with the target civ.

I wonder if applying this type of logic to city trades is possible and if it would make the mechanic less cheesier. Also, it would make city exchanges less frequent overall - a change that many would appreciate, I assume, seeing all the recent discontent with the mechanic.

This person is making a lot of sense =)

 

[Takagi Hiro]

Wasn't this exactly the problem when you could trade lump sums of gold with non-friends? You could trade 300 gold for a luxury, declare war immediately and have both the gold and your luxury back. What OP described in his post, basically. That's why it is now only possible to trade lump sums of gold with friends as, of course, declaring a war on a friends will result in major global opinion backlash, not just a (hidden) negative modifier with the target civ.

I wonder if applying this type of logic to city trades is possible and if it would make the mechanic less cheesier. Also, it would make city exchanges less frequent overall - a change that many would appreciate, I assume, seeing all the recent discontent with the mechanic.

Agreed.

 

[Aristos]

We weren't friends, though. No declaration of friendship. I literally took no diplomatic penalty from this "exchange."

You are not seeing it yet... continue the game and you shall see. And then come back and tell us what happened....

 

[Takagi Hiro]

You are not seeing it yet... continue the game and you shall see. And then come back and tell us what happened....

Attila broke the fourth wall and gave me a CTD the turn after I took his capital.

 

[Gazebo]

Wasn't this exactly the problem when you could trade lump sums of gold with non-friends? You could trade 300 gold for a luxury, declare war immediately and have both the gold and your luxury back. What OP described in his post, basically. That's why it is now only possible to trade lump sums of gold with friends as, of course, declaring a war on a friends will result in major global opinion backlash, not just a (hidden) negative modifier with the target civ.

I wonder if applying this type of logic to city trades is possible and if it would make the mechanic less cheesier. Also, it would make city exchanges less frequent overall - a change that many would appreciate, I assume, seeing all the recent discontent with the mechanic.

This makes sense to me. The code is already intended to only allow truly friendly civs to trade cities, but it'd be fair for human and AI interaction to actually wall it behind a DOF.

I'm also going to make it so that the AI can't trade 3rd party war/peace without an embassy (if it isn't already, and I don't think it is).

G

 

[Funak]

This makes sense to me. The code is already intended to only allow truly friendly civs to trade cities, but it'd be fair for human and AI interaction to actually wall it behind a DOF.

I'm also going to make it so that the AI can't trade 3rd party war/peace without an embassy (if it isn't already, and I don't think it is).

G

This is somewhat offtopic, but is it possible to me the AI stop asking me to declare war on my friends again? I mean I can't ask them to declare on their friends so it is really unfair that I should suffer diplopenalties for getting asked to declare war on my friend.

 

[Gazebo]

This is somewhat offtopic, but is it possible to me the AI stop asking me to declare war on my friends again? I mean I can't ask them to declare on their friends so it is really unfair that I should suffer diplopenalties for getting asked to declare war on my friend.

DOW on your friends? What do you mean? DOF friends or just friendly friends?

G

 

[Funak]

DOW on your friends? What do you mean? DOF friends or just friendly friends?

DoF friends. Actual friends
'Friendly friends' are just enemies I haven't attacked yet

 

[Gazebo]

DoF friends. Actual friends
'Friendly friends' are just enemies I haven't attacked yet

Shouldn't be happening, so I'll check.

Edit: make a github report, please.

G