Bribing cities and units should be optional in Civ 3

Alexander's Horse · June 24, 2001, 07:09

Bribing cities is usually not played in multiplayer. And bribing units is just ridiculous.

Inverse Icarus · June 24, 2001, 11:12

i concur, wholeheartedly.

it should be a checkbox somehwere (i just hope it isnt a bijillion checkboxes to start a game).

in multiplayer there is often a "NO BRIBING" pretense, which someone breaks during the game.

after all, when your losing there are no rules of war.

Dauphin · June 24, 2001, 12:45

Depends on who you are bribing. If it is a well-disciplined army them it would be diificult, nay impossible, to subvert. If it is a rabble of malcontents it would be quite easy.

I've never understood the reasoning behind bribing cities.

Rasputin · June 24, 2001, 12:51

too late for civ 3 i would say , perhaps an option in civ 5

splangy · June 24, 2001, 14:57

you should bee able to couse unrest with your spies buy bribing officials and the city should then revolt and become barbarian. does anyone know if units were ever bribed in the feild?

Footie Mad · June 24, 2001, 15:19

I think the whole bribing concept is a way of giving gold a bigger meaning in the game. Now that the armies are supported by gold it becomes invaluable thus the need of bribing, at least in the form it is now, is unnecessary.

Inverse Icarus · June 24, 2001, 17:03

i just hated stationing a large army in one of my cities, with city walls and great defenders, only to have an enemy AI bribe it (with the tons of cash they just got somehow), and then use my own tanks to destroy my settlers/engineers improving the terrain behind it.

i think (hope) the "enroaching culture" concept will replace the bribing thing.

or maybe really cultural cities cant be bribed? what about nationality?

jesus, firaxis hasn't told us much.

eNo · June 24, 2001, 18:22

Well I imagine that the higher you're culture rating is, the more money it costs to bribe a city. Or at least that's how it should be. There should be a way that you could offer a counter-bribe. Or maybe build some sort of security.

Sean · June 24, 2001, 18:31

No Bribing! A good Idea indeed. At least as a toggled option.

TechWins · June 25, 2001, 16:19

I think if your culture rating is low than your cities should be able to be bribed more easily. Also the smaller your cities are the greater chance that they could be bribed. If bribing would work this way it would be another way too counter act ICS.

MORON · June 25, 2001, 19:13

Good idea

Alexander's Horse · June 25, 2001, 22:33

I'm glad this idea is getting support.

TechWins · June 25, 2001, 22:36

Quote:

Good idea

Who me? If so thanks.

Alexander's Horse · June 26, 2001, 01:20

No, me

TechWins · June 26, 2001, 01:53

Quote:

No, me

Don't be so sure.

Urban Ranger · June 26, 2001, 03:53

Units defected to the other side all the time in battles throughout history. I don't see why bribing unit is such a bad idea. Units of a democratic nations can't be bribed. Units in a stack can't be bribed.

As for "bribing" of cities, it's not really paying money to buy off a city but a representation of a concentration of efforts to promote your civ within the enemy city plus a host of clandestine operations (e.g. agitations).

As unconventional warfare has long been a part of conflicts between civilisations there is no real reason to "outlaw" it.

Alexander's Horse · June 26, 2001, 04:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Units defected to the other side all the time in battles throughout history.

Really? Name 3 decisive historical battles that were decided by unit defections?

LaRusso · June 26, 2001, 04:18

hm, nice one.
i only know about italian submarine surrendering to a british hydroplane in WW2. i guess that does not count as a major battle

Urban Ranger · June 26, 2001, 05:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Really? Name 3 decisive historical battles that were decided by unit defections?

Why should I answer your pointless and ill-defined question? First of all, what do you mean by "decisive historial battles?" Do you mean the battles were short, they ended some long-standing conflicts. or that they changed the course of history? Secondly, how much do we know about history? Or rather, how much do you know about history?

Grumbold · June 26, 2001, 08:53

Bribing units was quite common in the Renaissance era when mercenary condotteries supplied the bulk of the army rather than trained National troops. In any period mercenary troops being paid to fight (or quite often, promised pay but not given it) have been able to be swayed to the other side or desert. This has often changed the short term course of a war or helped win a battle. It is also quite common to bribe an enemy nation into agreeing not to start a war.

The difficulty with Civ though is that the bulk of the military costs and delay lie in creating your army. In reality while an army could be raised in a year it was so fabulously expensive to maintain that most wars lost everyone involved lives and money without accomplishing a great deal. In Civ armies are cheap and military victories provide immediate benefits. If culture means that well developed cities will cost more to garrison than they return in increased productivity for many many years, then perhaps Civ 3 will be finally starting to redress the balance.

TechWins · June 26, 2001, 16:27

Quote:

Really? Name 3 decisive historical battles that were decided by unit defections?

Tell me if you can name one time in Civ2 that when the other
civ(s) bribed your units that it made you loose the war or even made you loose a considerable number of units. Bribery really isn't that big of a deal. Bribery is just Civ's way of portraying people who have betrayed there nation. I'm all for it, it adds a little bit of realism but doesn't take or add to the fun. So who cares.

I think that if you pay the citizens of a city to revolt that there's a 50% chance that it won't work and you won't get your money back.

Overall bribery does give a special advantage to the rich civs. Which should be in place because having a lot of gold doesn't really effect that much of the game except for rush jobs.

Footie Mad · June 26, 2001, 16:41

Quote:

Originally posted by TechWins

Overall bribery does give a special advantage to the rich civs. Which should be in place because having a lot of gold doesn't really effect that much of the game except for rush jobs.

But hasn't Firaxis already confirmed that in civ 3 your miltary units are all supported by gold? Thereby increasing the importance of wealth and giving an advantage to the rich civs, is it really necessary to also be able to bribe, does it add much to gameplay? In civ 2 i found it more annoying than fun when you could just buy everything.

TechWins · June 26, 2001, 17:04

Quote:

But hasn't Firaxis already confirmed that in civ 3 your miltary units are all supported by gold

That's true but I was referring to Civ2. I'm glad they did this for Civ3.

Quote:

does it add much to gameplay

No, but does it really take that much away from gameplay? I have only bribed one city and that's it. Plus I have only had unit bribed away from me. I actually thought it was kind of cool in a way when my unit got bribed.

Alexander's Horse · June 26, 2001, 20:32

Quote:

Originally posted by TechWins

I have only bribed one city and that's it. Plus I have only had unit bribed away from me.

In other words, you haven't played much but that doesn't stop you having a freaking opinion on everything.

TechWins · June 27, 2001, 00:02

Quote:

In other words, you haven't played much but that doesn't stop you having a freaking opinion on everything.

No, in other words it just doesn't occur that much to me. Tell me if I'm wrong but isn't this forum open to anybody? So since I'm in a forum I'm allowed to be in I am also allowed to state whatever my opinion is. Even if that opinion is against your narrow-minded thinking ways. I have a question for you. Why do you think that you can act like a complete jackass to people just because you're deity?

Alexander's Horse · June 27, 2001, 00:17

By all means state your opinion but it would probably carry more wieght if it was an informed one, which we now know it isn't.

But thank you for your contributions to date, for what they are worth

TechWins · June 27, 2001, 03:19

I can know see how you've been able to post over 10,000 to become a deity level. You have just posted 1-2 lines of non sense. That's allright though, I admire a really ambitious idiot.

Alexander's Horse · June 27, 2001, 03:42

Tut tut, Techloses, try and stay on-topic.

TechWins · June 27, 2001, 04:38

Quote:

Tut tut, Techloses, try and stay on-topic.

I didn't lose anything. I'm the one who can support his opinion not you. So if that makes me a loser than I'm a big loser. Again you're the one who got off topic.