I think this was already discussed regarding the "closed borders", but :

- Turn 151 : Roving Clans ban me from the market

- Turn 165 : I pay the Roving Clans some Pearls and Mithrite so that they remove the ban. Then I buy 102 Adamantian

- Turn 166 : Roving Clans ban me from the market



I think they shouldn't be allowed to kick me out so quickly. At least allow me X turns of access to the market, where X varies by how much I pay them to lift the ban ?



The save file is attached.

Broken Lords - Turn 167.zip



Note : I don't understand why I can't find any Adamantian in any of my regions ? I'm sure I'm missing something, but what ?

I'll send this up to wilbefast but it'll be a while before he gets to it, as he's left for the Amaze indie festival with our very own Kaboomer in tow.

icarus86 wrote:
I think this was already discussed regarding the "closed borders", but :

- Turn 151 : Roving Clans ban me from the market

- Turn 165 : I pay the Roving Clans some Pearls and Mithrite so that they remove the ban. Then I buy 102 Adamantian

- Turn 166 : Roving Clans ban me from the market



I think they shouldn't be allowed to kick me out so quickly. At least allow me X turns of access to the market, where X varies by how much I pay them to lift the ban ?



The save file is attached.

Broken Lords - Turn 167.zip



Note : I don't understand why I can't find any Adamantian in any of my regions ? I'm sure I'm missing something, but what ?

Hmm... my intuition says this is a diplomacy issue and not an AI issue: I don't think there is an influence cost penalty associated with banning someone just after removing a ban.

IMHO, any agreement should have steep influence cost to be nullified just after singing, or very quickly after that.



It is essentially a matter on honor, and being dishonest should lead to "literally" losing influence over other factions, or at least getting further penalties for any other agreements.





Of course, in case when faction is swimming in influence gain, this would affect it less, without some additional change in how influence system works.

player1 wrote:
IMHO, any agreement should have steep influence cost to be nullified just after singing, or very quickly after that.



It is essentially a matter on honor, and being dishonest should lead to "literally" losing influence over other factions, or at least getting further penalties for any other agreements.





Of course, in case when faction is swimming in influence gain, this would affect it less, without some additional change in how influence system works.

Yep this is exactly what we did for relation states and, recently, borders, map exchanges and commercial agreements - so it would make sense to do it for the market ban as well. Recent forum activity has left me a bit... um... busy though I'll get on to this when I've finished looking into a couple of other AI/diplomacy/trade issues that have been reported.

wilbefast wrote:
Yep this is exactly what we did for relation states and, recently, borders, map exchanges and commercial agreements - so it would make sense to do it for the market ban as well. Recent forum activity has left me a bit... um... busy though I'll get on to this when I've finished looking into a couple of other AI/diplomacy/trade issue that have been reported.

Thank you !