#2377 Cease-fire is not seen in Indian advisor
Under 0.10.5, the Apache declared war to me for a very small reason (perhaps they disliked my troops passing through their territory, even though they did not harm the Apache).
Then I slaughtered several of them and then I "Demanded tribute". They answered: "We will agree peace for 32 money, but do not do this again." The strange thing is:
1. After a small provocation, they declared war (I interpret it that they did not want peace for free), but now they are willing to pay for it after a massacre.
2. I immediatelly looked to my Indian advisor - there was war.
At least the later seems to me a bug. Yes, very soon they agreed to cease-fire (maybe at the immediate end of turn), but it is confusing to see "war" in Indian advisor before this end of turn.
Reflame
WWC1D?: This bug remains blocked until we know whether Col1 allowed demanding tribute while at war.
Last edit: Mike Pope 2013-01-23
The short answer to the question " whether Col1 allowed demanding tribute while at war." is: yes, since you seem to always be able to demand tribute from indian tribes (with scouts, artillery or soldiers).
(I just checked that with discoverer and viceroy).
But as far as I can tell there is not really a "state of war" between one of the European nations and the indian tribes (in Col1).
There are the alarm indicators (aka exclamation marks), but neither is there anything like a peace/war state shown in the indian adviser, nor do all the other indian settlements of the same tribe turn very angry (a lot of red exclamation marks), if one is attacked or even burned down.
Thank you. So in summary:
Yes that's pretty much how I see it.
Though I should have also mentioned, that while I was able to demand tribute, I never actually got any. That is, even when faced with an overwhelming force and with the indian settlement having lost already several units, the indians would never acquiesce to my demands.
I looked into the war/peace state between the European Nations and the Natives a bit more, and as it turns out it's all a bit more complicated.
First these images show the dialog (with the first question answered as "No") when you first meet an Indian tribe:
So the ingame dialog between Indians and Europeans talks about war and peace, so it is not suprising that players interpret that as there actually being a distinct war/peace state.
Furthermore there actually seem to be (at least) three distinct values that Colonization uses to describe the relationship between the player and an Indian tribe:
#1and#2can be viewed by selecting the debug info flag in the cheat menu, and then activating the "Anger & Friction Levels".The numbers to the bottom right in the above picture show #1;
the numbers partially obscuring the settlements show #2 .
This whole issue seems to be handled rather inconsistently by the game.
There is the mentioned dialog about war and peace when you first meet a tribe, but you can never again offer them peace (via scout or wagon train for example) or declare war (you can just attack though).
If you answer the initial peace offer with 'no' you apparently can no longer open missions in any of the tribes settlements. Not after showering them with gifts, and not even after having recruited Pocahontas.
Different actions have different influences on the above mentioned values.
For example attacking a settlement increases the value of #2 (for that settlement) quite significantly, while increasing #1 only moderately (also depending on difficulty level).
[That was probably responsible for my previous observation of destroying one settlement and still being able to be friendly with another of the same tribe.]
Opening missions in settlements decreases #1 and #2 (especially a mission in the capital seems to decrease #1 considerably).
Pocahontas seems to decrease all #1's and #2's to zero.
gifts reduce #1 and #2
etc.
Generally speaking the #2 value of a settlement seems to be somewhat influenced by the accumulated alarm value, i.e. at a given constant alarm value the #2 value constantly rises (if not decreased by other means).
The friendliness of the dialog (see picture below) you see when you enter a village with a Scout seems to be mostly dependent on the #1 value.
So effectively this issue exploded into what the WWC1-wiki refers to as the "Native Annoyance"-Problem.
I thought before investigating further and more systematically (my time permitting), I wanted to hear some comments from the development side, if and how these new values should be handled during any investigation into the "Native Annoyance"-Problem.
Last edit: sjy68a16a3pu9oy5o0rpzq20lrd5 2014-11-08
FreeCol provides a similar dialog, but answering 'no' only gives an initial tension boost. The ban on missionaries is a Col1-incompatibility that needs fixing. That was a good one to find, I have always suspected there was more to that dialog.
FreeCol implements #1 and #2, and they feed into each other the manner you go on to describe. AFAICT the place we are incompatible is just the numbers used. We certainly have complaints for example that missionaries are less effective in FreeCol than Col1. What would help here is some examples of what effect an event (e.g. establish mission, gift of 100 Coats, defeat native raid, etc) has in Col1. Missions are particularly interesting as their effect is ongoing.
Are you able to distinguish between #2 and #3? FreeCol displays an alarm level, albeit not with exclamation marks, but for us #2 and #3 are the same thing.
As I mentioned, while this is definitely a difference between FreeCol and Col1, this behavior feels very much like a bug or a not completely implemented feature.
For example there is not really a downside to saying "yes" and then attacking the Indian tribe at the next opportunity, as opposed to saying "no" (and thus at least keeping one's word).
But you're right it probably should be implemented in the bug for bug reimplementation ruleset.
In Col1 #2 and #3 are not(!) the same thing.
I am not certain yet but I think the color of the exclamation marks are a rough indicator of value #2 (with green lowest while red being highest), while the number of exclamation marks is a measure of the growth of value #2.
Will try to do a more systematic, and thorough investigation when my time permits.
Follow up question: if you have been banned from establishing missions, what happens if you try? Just a simple "go away" message, or do they kill the missionary unit, as currently occurs when the settlement is too annoyed?
Your only option is to "Cancel Action", there is also apparently no longer a way to incite that tribe to attack another European nation. (See attached picture).
As mentioned before, this behavior is independent of the settlement-tension or the tribe wide tension (,which can be brought down to zero tension even after the initial 'no' answer).
Incidentally "Cancel Action" is also the only option you get when a missionary enters a settlement without having had contact to the tribe before (easily accomplished in cheat mode), i.e. without the above shown 'peace offering'-dialog.
So as mentioned before this smells a lot like an incomplete feature in the original game, but I guess that can't be helped.
OK, that should be straightforward to implement. Pity it will need another save format extension.
FreeCol just warns that contact is required in these cases, which are possible in normal play if using the amphibious-moves extension.
Agreed.
The required changes have survived the regression tests and have been committed in git.cdd7e4a.
Changing to WWC1D state. AFAICT all the bugs are fixed, but the distinction between the 3 types of native alarm remains.
Yeah, the missionary behavior after the initial 'no'-answer is now the same as in Col1. (At least as far as I can tell ;-). )
This is obiously the correct behavior for the classic ruleset, though I am not so sure about the standard FreeCol ruleset.
I mean it is pretty counterintuitive if Pocahontas can erase all hard feelings that result from a player having wiped out half an Indian tribe and having repeatedly broken his word, but not the consequences of having declined an initial peace offer.
So I would prefer the old behavior in the standard FreeCol ruleset, but that is you're call to make.
Point taken. Try git.528a8b2.