have anyone tried threathening first before going to war?
Will it lessen repercussions? just a thought. Havn't tried it yet though.
:book:
Printable View
have anyone tried threathening first before going to war?
Will it lessen repercussions? just a thought. Havn't tried it yet though.
:book:
I assume you mean "accept these terms or we'll attack!"?
If so, that is indeed a good question and I hope someone answers it because I'm totally in the dark too:laugh4:
I agree. It feels like... if I make an offer, include "Accept or we will attack", and the offer is generous or very generous... and the offer is rejected... the Reputation hit for going to war should be lessened. Not removed, mind you, you are still being aggressive. But there should be a little bit of mitigation from the fact you made them generous offers to avoid war.
HOWEVER... if a deal gets accepted, and you attack within 20 or so turns, it should hit you with an extra heavy rep hit for going to war... you're not just aggressive, you're a liar as well.
hear!, hear! to that ^^
:book:
I hope it does.
Even if your aggressive. in a way, you declared what you wanted and they didn't want to agree with your terms, may it be demanding or generous.
emissaries first before the troops. You still gave them time to prepare for your advance.
It's like, "give it to me, or else" from there, you already gave a choice. :smash: hahahaha... a little out of line but it does happen.
:skull: I hope it also adds to your king's dread or atleast it factors it out.
:book:
I hope it does.
Even if your aggressive. in a way, you declared what you wanted and they didn't want to agree with your terms, may it be demanding or generous.
emissaries first before the troops. You still gave them time to prepare for your advance.
It's like, "give it to me, or else" from there, you already gave a choice. :smash: hahahaha... a little out of line but it does happen.
:skull: I hope it also adds to your king's dread or atleast it factors it out.
Yes but reputation is how other factions in general see you, and how likely they are to want to deal with you.
If you go around making impossible demands on other nations to avoid war, it will be seen as pretense by others and they'll trust you less. Whereas if you go around making generous offers that get turned down, they'll be a little more understanding because you were offering them something in their best interest before it came to fighting. That's why Balanced should be the dividing line. Sending over an "Accept or we will attack" on a demanding offer doesn't look like diplomacy, it looks like bullying, and other factions will be a bit less comfortable making deals with you.
Seriously, if you go asking for 5 cities, 1000 florins a turn tribute for the next 1000 turns, and offer them nothing but "accept or we will attack"... yea, I think you should get a big fat Rep hit for attacking after that.
At least, that's how it should work.
That's not lying... it's a sorta fine point, but "accept or we attack" is not the same as "accept and we won't attack." The first says you can possibly do something to avert war, but if you don't then it is certainly war. The second says if you do something war is certainly avoided, and may not happen even if you don't. It's a threat, as opposed to a promise. World of difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCoyote
Nah Foz, in any exchange, saying "Do this or I'll hit you" has the immediate implication that doing that will avoid your being hit. If they follow the request and are assaulted anyway, the perception of witnesses is going to be that you broke the deal by hitting them.
yup.
just the same. only difference is that one is indirect. meaning more polite.
But still, looking at the context, nothing is polite when your trying to intimidate. :furious3: