How about a "mutual non-aggresion pact" ?

Tiberius · October 9, 2002, 04:16

Right now, the only way to make sure that a 3rd civ won't ally with your direct enemy against you is signing a MPP pact or a "military alliance against ..." with them.

This is however not what I want. I don't want to be dragged in some stupid war the AI is starting and also I'd like to be able to stop my wars when I want to, not when the alliance has ended.
What I want is only to be sure that they won't attack me during my wars with other civs, and nothing more. Hence the "mutual non-aggresion pact" (MNAP) idea. Something that would be between a peace treaty and a MPP.

Of course a MPP would still be stronger than a MNAP. Let's say that I sign a MNAP with X and X signs a MPP with Y. If I attack Y, X would declare war to me, despite of the MNAP.

(I hope I was clear enough. )

What do you think?

vondrack · October 9, 2002, 05:09

You'd have my full support for this idea. Would be a great addition to the current diplomacy options!

Ethelred · October 9, 2002, 06:26

You could call it the Piss Off and Leave Me Alone Pact.

Tiberius · October 9, 2002, 06:45

I might be obtuse (and I apologize for that) but what was your point?

Nym · October 9, 2002, 06:57

Very good idea

That is exactly the type of alliance I am often looking for.

Ethelred · October 9, 2002, 07:00

Originally posted by Tiberius
I might be obtuse (and I apologize for that) but what was your point?

He who laughs last didn't get the joke.

Palaiologos · October 9, 2002, 07:17

Ok. Good idea.

Der PH · October 9, 2002, 07:31

Very good idea!
This is definitely missing.

And as we are already discussing this topic:
What about a "Please make peace with ..." option?

AFAIR it was included in MOO2 and I was a bit disappointed that civ3 didn't provide it.
it could be of practical use when you want to protect a vassal state or a valuable trading partner without actually going to war and it could greatly increase your reputation when you act as a global mediator.

Tiberius · October 9, 2002, 07:32

Originally posted by Ethelred
He who laughs last didn't get the joke.

I smiley could have been helpful.
This being said, would you sign with me a "Piss Off and Leave Me Alone Pact." ?

Tiberius · October 9, 2002, 07:35

Originally posted by Der PH
What about a "Please make peace with ..." option?

It would be a wellcomed addition, too. The UN could be the prerequisite wonder for such proposals/demands.

The Pioneer · October 9, 2002, 07:45

That'd be a welcomed addition to the game and give a new and very interesting twist to the Diplomacy aspect of the game. I usually do not go into an alliance because it's a certainty that will drag you into an unwanted war.

So long...

Der PH · October 9, 2002, 08:04

Originally posted by Tiberius
The UN could be the prerequisite wonder for such proposals/demands.

Agreed!
Now we just have to get FIRAXIS listen to us!

aahz_capone · October 9, 2002, 08:34

I'm totally for it. Any additions to the diplomacy would be great as it is woefully crappy compared to SMAC (see many threads *****ing about UN, please stop war against friend, etc).

I love the idea of a non agression pact. like what Hitler and Stalin did, but it didn't really work out for them because they were both nerds. I have also had it with AIs stopping MPPs because I'm no help or being dragged into war.

These extra option would work excellently with the UN discovery. Any chance of this ever so slightly huge change comming in a patch, for it is way too late for PTW?

Ethelred · October 9, 2002, 08:54

Originally posted by Tiberius

I smiley could have been helpful.

Smileys are evil and are a detrement to dry humour.

This being said, would you sign with me a "Piss Off and Leave Me Alone Pact." ?

Well it was your idea. I just labeled it.

I find an MPP gets the desired result. Just remember to cancel at the end of twenty turns. I have the game preferences set to renegotiate treaties at the end the end of the twenty turns. One of the nicer changes in 1.29f.

zeh · October 9, 2002, 08:59

I agree completly!

Some demand, like "stop the agression on our friend" will be usefull to deals diplomatics more real, instead of only have a huge military force to impose your points.

Tiberius · October 9, 2002, 09:06

Well, having a huge military force never hurts. Otherwise, why would people listen when you're threatening them with a "stop the aggresion against our friend OR ...".

Ethelred · October 9, 2002, 09:07

Some demand, like "stop the agression on our friend" will be usefull to deals diplomatics more real,

That is one I would like.

However if you look closely in the real world that sort of demand rarely has much effect. What usualy happens is a nation might send help like the US did for China in WWII, or the oil embargo for the same reason. Trade gets cut. Ambassadors are sent home. Spys are unleashed. Resources and money is given. Many of those can be done in Civ III.

zeh · October 9, 2002, 09:24

Originally posted by Tiberius
Well, having a huge military force never hurts. Otherwise, why would people listen when you're threatening them with a "stop the aggresion against our friend OR ...".

Yep. I concur... It's like a small boy ask for a giant to get out of his way. Someone will be smashed here, hehehe.
But I like have the both options. If the diplomatic fails, so the military war machine will be put in action.

Arrian · October 9, 2002, 10:58

I like both options. I also agree that having a powerful military should greatly improve your chances of convincing a Civ to "stop the agression against our friends, the _____"

-Arrian

p.s. Capone - Hitler and Stalin "nerds"

that brightened my morning. Thank you.

ChrisiusMaximus · October 9, 2002, 11:02

Here here anything that would improve the diplomacy and /or the trading aspects of the game would be very welcome.It is fair to say that some older games have more dip/trade options than civ3 and this needs to be addressed by Firaxis.

Please dont make us wait for civ4 before this happens!

Carver · October 9, 2002, 18:28

MNAP would be very good, just one of many improvements needed in the diplo arena. Although the MNAP should be breakable, with a stiff penalty. Maybe all your cities should riot for X turns, or other civs won't make trades with you for X turns.

Tiberius · October 10, 2002, 04:44

More support? Anyone?
Come on, don't be shy! All I'm asking for are 3 words:

I second this!

mtgillespie · October 10, 2002, 07:43

Can't this be achieved already, by re-negotiating your peace treaty? Then anyone who attacks within 20 turns takes a rep hit.

Tiberius · October 10, 2002, 09:28

I might be wrong but I don't think that peace treaties have an expiration date. AFAIK they expire only when are linked together with some other things (like peace in exchange for peace and 20 gpt).

Besides you can sign any treaty to obtain a reputation hit if somebody attacks you. It's just not the same thing with a treaty that has a specific goal.

I see the non-aggresion pact as a natural transition between a peace-treaty and a MPP; the missing link on the "enemy - peace - ... - ally" chain.

"Piss of and leave me alone" is one way to look at it, while
"We are friends so I support you and I won't attack you, but I don't want your wars" is another possibility.

One more use I can think about is the possibility of modeling neutral civs. Playing Switzerland would be more of an option this way.

Either way, IMHO it would add more flavour to the diplomatic relations.

aahz_capone · October 10, 2002, 12:03

a mnap will also make the ai think twice about being bribed into a coalition against you. There's little to stop them breaking a peace treaty, often they couldn't care less for a few techs. I see a peace treaty in civ3 more as "cease fire" because I know those dirty rottten $%@%$%@ will attack again.

planetfall · October 10, 2002, 12:06

Originally posted by Tiberius
I might be wrong but I don't think that peace treaties have an expiration date. AFAIK they expire only when are linked together with some other things (like peace in exchange for peace and 20 gpt).

Initial peace treaty has a time limit of 20 turns, but then automatically migrates to untimed peace treaty. The difference is
A- if break peace within 1st 20 turns, take a reputation hit,
B- if break peace during untimed peace, there is no reputation hit.

MNAP would be a great addition to game if factored into AI willingness to not join MA against you. Maybe something like, 2 * cost to AI for MA against civY with civX if civX had a MNAP with civY.

-- PF

ThaddeusAlexander · October 10, 2002, 12:29

I love the idea as a peacekeeper ... it actually gives me that role in the game! If an AI player starts to get roudy and pushing for a domination or conquest victory, then I can beat down on his capitol and some other cities, break them, and declair peace only if they agree to not declair war agian for X number of turn ...

That would be great ... and would help in the race for a victory if I'm going for the later-game diplo or space race ... more time !

Although I think it would be a good idea to maybe do a mutual "no production" pact as well... Mutually agree to not produce nukes or ICBMs for example ... or stealth units maybe ..... or maybe just force them to stop producing tanks for 20 turns

Cheers
~Thadalex

Der PH · October 11, 2002, 03:55

Originally posted by ThaddeusAlexander
Although I think it would be a good idea to maybe do a mutual "no production" pact as well... Mutually agree to not produce nukes or ICBMs for example ... or stealth units maybe ..... or maybe just force them to stop producing tanks for 20 turns

Another good idea that I second!

Nym · October 11, 2002, 12:57

I agree, but it is impossible to verify that the treaty is/was respected. It would be so useless.

ThaddeusAlexander · October 11, 2002, 13:00

Originally posted by Nym
I agree, but it is impossible to verify that the treaty is/was respected. It would be so useless.

It wouldn't be hard at all ... Once the pact is signed, the option to build whatever you decided upon is simply removed from the build list of the players involved. Thus, you simply cannot build it!

Cheers
~Thadalex