16-11-2002 18:25									#1
	The Embargo Fiasco Suffering from ads?

v1.29 game. To help my recent success to pass the Aztec score I decided to see who I could get to embargo the Aztecs (3rd highest score, well advanced nation). Next, 12 AI Civs, some who were annoyed with me, agreed... for free. Then after the 20turns were up some of those 12 could now trade their excess luxuries/goods with the Aztecs, but ALL 12 asked me to continue the embargo... & some were willing to pay me to do it. I then did the same thing to the Chinese, a weaker & less advanced Civ, with no problem... and 1 of the AI Civs who agreed to do this against the Chinese were... the Aztecs. AI Civs seem so unconcerned about giving up "potential" trades for free. I recall this occuring in the out-of-the-box version too. What is the AI logic for this? Is PtW any different/better?

	16-11-2002 18:41									#2
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I don't know about if PtW is any better, but might it be because there's no link between the civs, and hence, they're more than willing to agree to your terms?

	16-11-2002 18:55									#3
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Are you trading with them? Maybe they're fearing of losing a potentially very strong trade partner if they disagree to your suggested embargo and don't want to risk to worsen the relationship with your nation.

In the real world this scenario would be comparable to the embargo the USA had set up with countries like Cuba or lately the Iraq and USA's "partners" like Europe etc just joined in not to risk their relationships and trades.

But I guess that's just too much for Civ, I rather think all civs agree to set up an embargo if they dislike another civ for whatever reason and want to put them into a worse situation.

	16-11-2002 20:38									#4
	Support Apolyton

quote: I don't know about if PtW is any better, but might it be because there's no link between the civs, and hence, they're more than willing to agree to your terms?

Most had links (only Babylon did not). I saw the F4 screen with "potential trades" linking them before I attempted this.

quote: Are you trading with them?

Some, but not all 12 of them. Some even found me annoying.

quote: I rather think all civs agree to set up an embargo if they dislike another civ for whatever reason and want to put them into a worse situation.

Germany was always annoyed with me until I gave them 1 free tech. Germany & I even fought in wars against each other. Germany & the Aztecs fought some wars together as allies. The minute I offered Germany an embargo against the Aztecs they took it... and 20 turns later asked me to continue it.

	16-11-2002 21:47									#5
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I think there are a lot of factors. Namely, your reputation vs. the civ' you are proposing the embargo against, your culture and power vs. that of the other civ', and whether the civ' you are making the proposal to has an existing trade agreement with the civ' you are proposing the embargo against where the civ' you are making the proposal to is receiving luxury or strategic resource from the other civ'. Of all these elements the latter seems to be the most crucial. I have had instances where I am number one in power and culture and the civ' I am making the proposal to is gracious toward me but they won't agree to an embargo even if I offer them everything I have because they are receiving iron or horses from the civ' I am trying to embargo.

A change I would love to see is, in these instances, I want to be able to say, "look, I know you are getting iron from them but if you agree to this embargo I'll give you iron for a better deal." Currently this can't be done because you can't offer excess resources if the other civ' already has a source of that resource. We should be able to offer/receive resources in trade even if we or the other civ' already have it because then we could turn around and trade it to someone else for a profit or use it as leverage for an embargo as described above.

	17-11-2002 21:31									#6
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I have never used embargos. Can they really help you win the game? OK, there might be some cases but I think they are rare.

	17-11-2002 22:28									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I have used embargos only to prevent strategic resources... For instance, to keep horses, oil, etc. from an enemy I am invading until I can successfully blockade them. Yes, they aren't very common, but it's a useful feature.

	18-11-2002 14:27									#8
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Embargos can indeed be useful, but they would be much stronger if you could talk someone into ending trade with a nation by giving them the same good, like Billster2k3 suggested.

I've been pissed off more than once when so-called friends start selling an enemy a resource I have been working very hard to deny them.

	18-11-2002 16:27									#9
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I even forgot in my last games that I can call for an embargo. I learned that when a civ is trading with another one, it is almost impossible to convince them to join an embargo. It is much-much easier to convince them to declare war! Shouldn't this be vice-versa? First trade embargo, and only then war.

For most of the time it is something like:
Me wanting to deny strategic resources from civ Y. X is trading with Y, so I ask X to join the embargo:
Me to X: I offer "Trage embargo against Y + 3 techs + 1000 gold"
X: No way, we can't do that.
Me: How about "War against Y + 300 gold" ?
X: OK

	18-11-2002 16:29									#10
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Embargoes i have found, are only usefull when you are at war with a CIV to deny them with strategic resources.

Say they have MA's and have one oil resource and an aluminium resource and you capture these. They could still trade for these resources to keep churning out MA's, with an embargo all you would need to do is mop up their existing forces and you have the war won!.

I find this kind of pre-emptive strategy wins wars faster than building 40 more MA's and slogging it out.

	18-11-2002 21:07									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Trade Embargoes, like RoP Agreements, are a form of "bonding" among civs, and are used to strengthen ties / improve relations.

	19-11-2002 00:06									#12
	Increase Your PM Length

"We should be able to offer/receive resources in trade even if we or the other civ' already have it because then we could turn around and trade it to someone else for a profit or use it as leverage for an embargo as described above."

We could do as it now. Offer your only one Iron and you will get very good price for it (much better than for extra Iron) and than buy Iron for yourself from another civ (its extra one). Same could work with luxuries, but it is much safer -- they do not disapear :P

	19-11-2002 03:08									#13
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

In my experience, whenever I've encountered a situation in which an embargo might really be useful, the civ I ask for the embargo "will never accept such a deal" precisely because they are involved in lucrative trades with the target civ.

-Arrian

	19-11-2002 06:39									#14
	Got spare money?

As others have said when Civ A is currently trading with another Civ B, asking Civ A to embargo Civ B is near impossible. However, I have found embargoes very useful.

1. Deny Resources. If you discover where resources are before the other Civs, set up embargo(es) before the Civs start trading.

2. Stop Selling. Embargoes not only stop them from buying resources, but selling their resources as well. Those extra 9 silks no longer earn him x per turn, cannot be traded for gold, technologies, workers, military alliances, MPPs, etc. etc. You hurt him on multiple levels.

3. Economic Distance Attack. If Civ B is strong with a huge lead, but on the opposite side of the world, embargoes can have a good long-term effect. Military alliances with other Civs are good, but mean "all we ask is give peace a chance" unhappy people & I've seen military alliances fall apart within 5 turns from being formed ( regardless of what I paid the AI Civs ), & they can refuse to make peace with you until you kill x units/cities of Civ B or until x turns pass. Embargoes are guaranteed solid at least 20 turns & as mentioned can last much longer. Sadly enough, the AI Civ you embargo will not try to counter-embargo you with other Civs... only declare war.

4. Create new wars. I have found Civ B is equally annoyed with me as he is with all those who agree to the embargoes against him. Mass embargoes against Civ B sets up multiple targets for Civ B to lash out at, I make sure I ask no weak neighbor Civs which Civ B might eat whole. If Civ B declares war against another superpower, I can later end the embargo & trade with both while I REX and/or devour other weaker smaller Civs (like Civ B's little buddy) elsewhere. Civ B will unlikely try to save his little buddy since he will be in the current war with the other superpower. I've found, the more embargoes you set up against Civ B, the less likely you are to be the target of a war from Civ B.

5. Hurt 'Too Powerful' Friends. If Civ B is a more powerful neighbor you want to keep friendly relations with so he doesn't eat you whole, an embargo is not only a good bond to set up with him, but you can use the embargo with him against another Civ(s) to hurt him. Much like how MPPs can be set up to hurt one's ally... but by you declaring who the embargo is against you have control over the situation, unlike MPPs where your ally can declare war with someone to really mess you up.

6. New Source of Income. If I see Civ A & Civ B at war I will ask Civ A (since we all hate Civ B more) to embargo Civ B during their war. Naturally, they eagerly accept & if they do not offer to pay to start the embargo, they often will pay you to continue the embargo.

7. Selfish Acquisition. If I want to destroy Civ B, asking Civ A to join in a military alliance against Civ B will mean Civ A will get some of Civ B's territory... territory I could of had all for myself. By asking Civ B to embargo Civ A I not only get to keep all of Civ B's territory for myself (unless Civ B decides he wants to join), but establish a negative relationship (annoyed) between Civ A & Civ B... it is unlikely Civ B will seek a military alliance against me with a Civ he is annoyed with.

	19-11-2002 07:01									#15
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Pyrodrew 7. Selfish Acquisition. If I want to destroy Civ B, asking Civ A to join in a military alliance against Civ B will mean Civ A will get some of Civ B's territory... territory I could of had all for myself. By asking Civ B to embargo Civ A I not only get to keep all of Civ B's territory for myself (unless Civ B decides he wants to join), but establish a negative relationship (annoyed) between Civ A & Civ B... it is unlikely Civ B will seek a military alliance against me with a Civ he is annoyed with.

Very nice. Sometimes I enter into an alliance with Civ A just so I know Civ A will be less likely attack me, but if I can get the embargo with them, it saves on them taking territory and makes it so that Civ A will less likely attack me. Nice.