military allies taking your former cities and razing them?!

SuiteSisterMary · November 19, 2001, 11:52

Ok, so I'm at war with China. Greece hops in on my side, due to an MPP. Fine.

China takes one of my cities. Then Greece takes it from China, and RAZES IT! That's not right.

I think that when a civ with which you have an MPP or Military Alliance takes a city from an enemy covered by the MPP or MA, and that city's pop is half or more your civ, the city should be 'liberated' as opposed to 'conquered' and return to your control.

Venger · November 19, 2001, 11:57

Just think of all the open farmland and pastures we'd have in Europe if we'd burnt down every liberated city and town...

Goofy indeed. Must...be...fixed... but will it be?

Venger

SuiteSisterMary · November 19, 2001, 19:29

In a similar note, I think we need two new diplomatic agreements.

1: "Non-aggression pact." AKA you scratch your back, I'll scratch mine. Peace of mind without the possibility of being dragged into a war with the biggest dog on the block.

2: "Non-interference pact." AKA look the other way. Great for when you want to punish another civ, and make sure everybody looks the other way.

Cuz lets face it. It blows chunks when I decide to expand at the expense of some little civ, only to have all my MPP partners jump in and start razing cities.

Andrew_Jay · November 19, 2001, 21:06

I'd prefer that with the MPP your allies ask if you want their help. If you say yes they automatically will, but, like the "look the other way" option I suppose they can leave you to your own devices. In my game and attacked the Chinese to take their rubber in a little city far from their empire and had to continue the war for 20 turns so as not to anger my allies. If they hadn't also been fighting the Chinese the war would have lasted 4 turns tops, most of that just to get the Chinese talking to me again.

monkspider · November 19, 2001, 21:21

that's terrible!!! Please report this to firaxis, or at least report this to the bug forum, this is a big deal Mary!

SuiteSisterMary · November 19, 2001, 21:28

I wouldn't classify it as a 'bug' so much as a 'limitation of the diplomacy system, which, while allowing you to do 'things' better, limits the amount of 'things' you can do.

Pyrodrew · November 19, 2001, 23:37

I believe the AI is programmed to raze cities which are too far away from their capital, this helps it avoid those heavy corruption cities. This might explain why Greece razed the city, but China didn't.

Personally, I also don't think it's a bug. Strategically, Greece razed a city that now 2 of it's competitors cannot have & would have done it no good (assuming the city was too far away for Greece to safely & profitably control). Even tho you are allied to the Greeks you are still in competition with them. Likewise, an AI Greek sending privateers (if they were any good) to destroy your ships & China's would be clever too IF you & China are the 2 current superpowers. The AI should not play to win with the guy who won... it should play to win. Nevertheless, I don't know your exact situation, so if you & China are not superpowers than the AI shouldn't have razed the city.

dexters · November 19, 2001, 23:41

The NATO alliance is a MPP. Article 5 of the treaty states an attack on one is an attack on all.

Just putting things in perspective that even in the real world, there are treaties that will drag in a lot of countries, even if you don't like it.

SuiteSisterMary · November 20, 2001, 00:22

Quote:

it should play to win

Sure, but it should also honor the spirit of the agreement. Unless it's American. Then "But, Sir, we had to burn the village in order to save it!" becomes a valid statement. :-)

SuiteSisterMary · November 20, 2001, 10:05

Quote:

The NATO alliance is a MPP. Article 5 of the treaty states an attack on one is an attack on all.

Oh, and had Germany, on it's own hook, charged across the Fulda Gap into the USSR, then the moment the Soviets shot back, attempted to invoke NATO, how do you think they'd have reacted?

Not with a declaration of War, I can tell you that. THAT, however, is EXACTLY how an MPP works in Civ3. "I'm going to punch you now, but if you punch me back, my big brother will jump into the fight."

DarkHawke · November 20, 2001, 10:09

Bah, changed my mind on this post, but the system won't let me delete it.

HugoHillbilly · November 20, 2001, 10:27

Quote:

Originally posted by SuiteSisterMary
1: "Non-aggression pact." AKA you scratch your back, I'll scratch mine. Peace of mind without the possibility of being dragged into a war with the biggest dog on the block.

2: "Non-interference pact." AKA look the other way. Great for when you want to punish another civ, and make sure everybody looks the other way.

Very good ideas, but not really practical. It would be too confusing trying to figure out everyones diplomatic position to each other.

Apolex · November 20, 2001, 10:37

What's really annoying is when your fighting an enemy and your ally's turn is right after the enemy's. The enemy comes in and takes your workers, and that same turn before you have a chance reclaim them, your ally comes in and takes them from the enemy and uses your workers as their own. Ugh.

challenge · November 20, 2001, 11:56

I am usually amazed when players complain about things the AI does that the player would do if given the oportunity -- since there is so much of it on these Civ 3 threads, I am no longer amazed, just amused.

Andrew1999 · November 20, 2001, 12:51

I tried to be a good ally once and ended up regretting it. I was allied with the Babylonians against the Zulus, and I retook a Babylonian city from them. I knew that when a city defects all the units in it change sides, so I pulled everyone out except for 1 rifleman, which would be enough to defend it until the Babylonians could reinforce (the Zulus were behind in technology). I opened up the Diplomacy screen and gave the city to Hammurabi, and the Rifleman promptly vanished. The Zulus waltzed right back in on their turn. So much for a good neighbor policy!

Trifna · November 20, 2001, 14:42

I guess that normally, allied civilisations do not NECESSARILY come at war when the ally does. It may be almost certain, but not totally sure. There even have some that went against their ally when war came.

And about destroying cities, I don't think it is very diplomatically normal to see the cities beeing automatically kept by the ally or even destroyed. And the ally shouldn't accept such from us either!!! So it may also implict human players.

SuiteSisterMary · November 20, 2001, 16:26

Quote:

I am usually amazed when players complain about things the AI does that the player would do if given the oportunity

Ah, but the human will have his reasons for doing whatever. The AI, however, is doing it because of a limitation, an overlooked idea, or a bug.

Pyrodrew · November 20, 2001, 16:43

Quote:

Originally posted by SuiteSisterMary

Sure, but it should also honor the spirit of the agreement. Unless it's American. Then "But, Sir, we had to burn the village in order to save it!" becomes a valid statement. :-)

The AI kept it's agreement... it went to war for you to help protect you. Your perception of the "spirit" compared to theirs or other intentions is irrelevant.

CyberGnu · November 20, 2001, 16:50

Ah, but think how much nicer Europe would be right now if all french cities had been razed instead of liberated.... *sigh*

SuiteSisterMary · November 20, 2001, 17:03

Quote:

The AI kept it's agreement... it went to war for you to help protect you. Your perception of the "spirit" compared to theirs or other intentions is irrelevant.

Yes, and while the behaviour is correct, I feel that the underlying rules themselves are lacking, to the point that it detracts from the game.