Move into Ally's Square

JMarks · May 6, 2002, 17:49

The ability to move into a square occupied by an ally should be included like it was in SMAC. Especially for MP. Not only is it conveiniant, but it makes sense. Surely my troops should be able to march past a regiment of spearmen on a road. Plus strategic areas can be beefed up with reinforcements. Plus ally's cities you just gave them won't fall immediatly. So many positives and so few negatives (like, what if two enemies are are allied to the same person and one occupies their ally's square and the other wants to move there) which could probably be figured out someway or another. Who's with me?

asleepathewheel · May 6, 2002, 18:03

I agree completely. This would esp be important for MP, would help team vs team setups I'm not sure I trust this for SP, don't trust the AI to be in my city.

I think that if the stack was attacked, the strongest defender should defend, regardless of the nationality.

ScreamingViking · May 6, 2002, 19:32

Yeah, and if my uncle had breasts, he'd be my aunt...

We'd all like to see this development, but I doubt it is possible under the logistical boundaries of the civ3 game design.

kring · May 6, 2002, 19:43

Based on numerous other posters, I am not sure I would trust them to occupy areas too close to my cities.

I like the old Diplomacy board game (AH) style of simultaneous movements.

Dom Pedro II · May 6, 2002, 22:06

I don't know... I mean, blocking the AIs way was my chief means of defending against pesky intrusion during peacetime. Not to mention that if you want to stop the AI from invading ANOTHER civilization this is the best way to go about it. There are a thousand reasons I can think of to leave it the way it is, but only one reason why not to.

Grrr · May 7, 2002, 00:27

I agree, but ONLY for allies. Not for people you are in peace with.

Spiffor · May 7, 2002, 00:36

To me it's very important, like trading units with other Civs : as in SMAC, there should be many more ways to directly help your allies. Currently, they're completely independant, and you can barely help them.

asleepathewheel · May 7, 2002, 00:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
To me it's very important, like trading units with other Civs : as in SMAC, there should be many more ways to directly help your allies. Currently, they're completely independant, and you can barely help them.

I agree. It would make the game seem much more like a team effort. If in a heated battle, my units, as it stands now, would have to be outside the protection of the city, trying to fight back. Better to have them in the city, defending it, and healing every turn, than to be picked off one by one on the outside.

Also would be great with air units. instead of having a carrier armada, you could just move the bombers to your Ally's city and go from there.

Grrr · May 7, 2002, 00:57

Unit trades also need to be reinstated.

asleepathewheel · May 7, 2002, 01:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Grrr
Unit trades also need to be reinstated.

definately. They took them out, out of fear of abuse by the player? Should be toggable option. Plus, would allow much more flexibility in MP.

Skanky Burns · May 7, 2002, 09:16

Unit trade was taken out to prevent abuse by players. Since it will mostly/exclusively be players vs players, this should be reinstated. (The code's still there, right? )

SirSebastian · May 7, 2002, 13:55

How long have you guys been playing? Hello? There is no "ally" status in Civ III.

Spiffor · May 7, 2002, 14:01

Technically speaking, yes : there are alliances and mutual protection pact, but not "allies". But we're talking generally about waging a war against a common ennemy.

Inverse Icarus · May 7, 2002, 14:47

i love garrisoning an allied city in smac. people with MPP + ROP should be able to stack units.

asleepathewheel · May 7, 2002, 19:00

Quote:

Originally posted by SirSebastian
How long have you guys been playing? Hello? There is no "ally" status in Civ III.

to add to what spiffor said, tihs discussion was to add in for MP play, where there will be alliances. Haven't you had a military alliance against someone? I've certainly seen both ends of that one, most often against me!

SirSebastian · May 8, 2002, 14:29

A military alliance to attack a civ is completely different from a Civ II style ally. Often, Civ III "allies" are merely wars of convinience, and in most cases you wouldn't even want a RoP with them, let alone the ability the stack units with them. Usually the people I get "alliances" with are furious with me anyway. =P However, I'm willing to renounce my position and apologize if it's true that Civ II style alliances will be in the game as well, as you claim. I have seen no mention of that at all.

Stuie · May 8, 2002, 16:12

Quote:

Originally posted by SirSebastian
How long have you guys been playing? Hello? There is no "ally" status in Civ III.

This is true. It would be nice if the whole diplomacy system could be beefed up to included not just alliances, but alliance blocs (ala NATO/WARSAW Pact). But I'm not expecting anything except what is explicitly stated by Firaxis, so I won't be disappointed.

Inverse Icarus · May 8, 2002, 16:13

the ally status would be a ROP and a MPP combined, because firaxis wouldnt add a whole new bit of "code".

i think multi-national pacts (ala NATO, Warsaw Pact) would be cool too.

Panag · May 8, 2002, 18:21

Quote:

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
I agree completely. This would esp be important for MP, would help team vs team setups I'm not sure I trust this for SP, don't trust the AI to be in my city.

I think that if the stack was attacked, the strongest defender should defend, regardless of the nationality.

hi ,

yep , i agree , and we should be capable to give units to a civ , but decide if we give the technolgy with it or not

have a nice day

asleepathewheel · May 8, 2002, 18:28

Quote:

Originally posted by SirSebastian
A military alliance to attack a civ is completely different from a Civ II style ally. Often, Civ III "allies" are merely wars of convinience, and in most cases you wouldn't even want a RoP with them, let alone the ability the stack units with them. Usually the people I get "alliances" with are furious with me anyway. =P However, I'm willing to renounce my position and apologize if it's true that Civ II style alliances will be in the game as well, as you claim. I have seen no mention of that at all.

Oh, I understand what you mean. took me a second, about that last line. I said that there will be alliances in MP-why this wasn't mentioned? Duh, anytime you have more than 2 players you will get people who team up against another guy or team.

And about the use of alliances right now-I guess we have different definitions of the term. I think that a military alliance against a third party is an alliance, as well as throwing in a ROP, which they will give you probably for free, and an embargo. What else do you to make it an alliance?

SirSebastian · May 8, 2002, 18:49

Quote:

Duh, anytime you have more than 2 players you will get people who team up against another guy or team.

Yep! But, that alliance is represented outside of the context of the game.

Quote:

What else do you to make it an alliance?

That, being the key phrase. You can't. The reason is that it's only an alliance against someone, never with someone. If I am allied with the French against the Zulus, and then I attack the Germans.... I do not have an alliance with the French... I only have: an alliance against the Zulus with the French.

Therefore, I reject the notion that stacked allied movement could or should exist in Civ III given the diplomatic model presented. Nor do I strongly believe either that it should be kept the same or changed. However, an alliance against a civ is certainly an addition to Civ III that I like... and I wouldn't give up the ability to have an embargo against someone and be their ally at the same time. I haven't actually tried that... but such things may only be possible within the current model.

-Sir Sebastian

asleepathewheel · May 8, 2002, 19:00

Quote:

Originally posted by SirSebastian

Yep! But, that alliance is represented outside of the context of the game.

The line between inside the game and outside the game are blurry.

But I see your point. It would be nice to have a more cohesive alliance, but I don't have a problem with the current setup though, I can see things from your perspective, with -rather than against. I tend to think of the game as against everyone so i have never really thought about having a strong alliance with another civ

kring · May 8, 2002, 20:14

Asleep it definitely is blurry. Current game 1.21 patch:

The French attack me the Iroquios over one of their cities culturally flipping to me. I get several other nations to MA against the French. A turn or two later, the French get the Japanese to MA against the Persians (but not me), so I tried something. I asked the Japanese to MA against the French, which they did. Talk about weird: the Japanese are still at war with the Persians due to the French, now the Japanese are at war with the French.

I didn't expect the system to allow that, but it did.

I still would be leery of allowing, either MP People or SP the AI to defend in my cities. I don't mind them blocking access to my cities from enemies or territory incursions. I would need some kind of assurance in the system to prevent my "ally" from suddenly deciding to help him/herself to one or more of my cities, all in the name of benevolence, of course.

Miznia · May 9, 2002, 18:45

One problem that I sense in most/all civ games is that I don't feel like it's really possible to befriend the computer. But I had this idea...

What if there was a kind of "unconditional alliance" that you'd make with a civ, which required you to help each other out and not attack each other? The thing is that, once the alliance is broken, you can't make it again with that particular civ. Consequently the AI could be permitted to act friendly under an unconditional alliance, without fear of the human overly abusing the option.

kring · May 9, 2002, 19:04

That sounds good. You could also implement it in MP. Otherwise, why trust either the computer or another player to respect the "alliance"?

Some of the posts I have read indicate treachery is those people's middle names! Consider the way they treat the AI is how I would expect them to treat me, dishonorably. Some of the other players I would not RPP/MA/MPP with because their favorite tactics are get the agreement, and then use it to invade/overrun.

asleepathewheel · May 9, 2002, 19:06

Quote:

Originally posted by kring
That sounds good. You could also implement it in MP. Otherwise, why trust either the computer or another player to respect the "alliance"?

Some of the posts I have read indicate treachery is those people's middle names! Consider the way they treat the AI is how I would expect them to treat me, dishonorably. Some of the other players I would not RPP/MA/MPP with because their favorite tactics are get the agreement, and then use it to invade/overrun.

If there is a "team victory" enabled, then I wouldn't break the pact. But if there can only be one winner....

kring · May 9, 2002, 21:19

Neither would I break the pact. Any MP game I play, if I give my word, I will keep it. I may not be willing to give my word to someone that has proven untrustworthy. I was taught the value of my word a long time ago by my dad. Once broken, trust is hard to reestablish.

My point being that way too many posts deal with those who would, even if there is a team victory turned on. I realize some will say: It's only the computer, not another player. However, how one treats the AI is oftentimes how one would treat another player. Sure, I realize there are games where one tests theories also.

I would be willing to have limited trust, unless/until that trust was broken. I would read up on the person if there were a poster at Apolyton, CivFanatics, or 1BC to check out there game style, mainly as a defensive strategy. Just like I have used this fora to check the AI strategy (and compare it to my observations of the AI S&T, or lack thereof). Just like when the AI is all polite, yet is massing troops on my borders. Sure, all they are doing is immigration checks. LOL Same as in Civ 2.

Don't get me wrong. I am all for the allied concept. I have often interposed my units in between a friendly civ, and its enemies.

Grrr · May 10, 2002, 00:40

Do we know if there is going to even be team victories?

kring · May 10, 2002, 11:38

I haven't heard. I haven't read where Firaxis/Infogrames/anyone else has even hinted that such would be an option. As a result, I don't expect it to be available. Unless they say otherwise on the box.

Panag · May 10, 2002, 11:50

Quote:

Originally posted by kring
I haven't heard. I haven't read where Firaxis/Infogrames/anyone else has even hinted that such would be an option. As a result, I don't expect it to be available. Unless they say otherwise on the box.

hi ,

ask the Q at the next chat , ...

have a nice day