Defensive Pacts-permanent Allinces-not Working Well?

[aracuan_76]

Hello to all,

i would like a question to ask.thanks to anyone who will just look at my question.

i feel something is wrong or is my idea only?

about defensive pacts,when someone declares war at me,(ex aztec)and i have a defensive alliance with another civilization,(ex england lets say),then although england devlares war to the civilization that attacking me,then the agreement no long exists.!

About permanent alliances(enable with fascism),then whats the difference?
this pact should be intact and after been attacked but i think that nothing changes in comparison with the old defenseice pact!is it or not?or i havent found how it works?

when i m attacking to other civilization the same thing happens?

please help!

[Quillan]

In the first part, you are correct. A defensive pact is automatically ended when either party declares war. The game doesn't seem to care WHY they declared war, just that they did, so it will end the pact even if your ally declares war on the nation that attacked you because of the defensive pact. I do not know if this is intentional, or an oversight.

My first thought is that it is an oversight, but long experience with Civ 3 makes me wonder. I had developed a rule of thumb in Civ 3 that I would never sign mutual protection pacts just because I would almost constantly be rooked into a war by them. I'd sign a MPP with Russia, and the next thing I know Russia would attack Greece. Before the next turn, I was at war with Greece because of a greek counterattack. After 7-10 turns, I'd be able to sign a peace treaty with Greece, but as long as Russia was at war with them, I'd be at war the next turn. Then if Greece convinced Rome to also attack Russia it would get worse. I'd have to wait until the 20 turn agreement was up and end it before I could get back to a permanent peace, and I hated it. I can't help but wonder if the current implementation is the way it is for this reason.

As to permanent alliances, I've never been in one because I don't seem to use the "Custom Game" option to start them. However, if I understand it correctly, they cannot be broken, and for all intents and purposes all signatories to a permanent alliance are considered one civilization for victory purposes. You'll all go to war and sign peace treaties at the same time. I expect you can still get rooked into a war you don't want that way, but you could get them all out of it too.

[Silbeg]

Originally posted by Quillan
As to permanent alliances, I've never been in one because I don't seem to use the "Custom Game" option to start them. However, if I understand it correctly, they cannot be broken, and for all intents and purposes all signatories to a permanent alliance are considered one civilization for victory purposes. You'll all go to war and sign peace treaties at the same time. I expect you can still get rooked into a war you don't want that way, but you could get them all out of it too.

Yes, you are correct. Once you sign a permanent alliance, your two empires are joined, for most things. And, it is permanent.

I haven't seen the computer AI declare a war yet, but sharing tech, freely trading resources, votes in UN... all of that rawks!

You can even tell your partner what techs to research, and if in a war, where to attack!

[aracuan_76]

very interesting

Hello to all,

Quillan,this isnt the first time you helping me.therfore i would like again to thank you.
several tests i have made with the permanent alliance.but still the agreement is broking up when someone declares war.i thought that this should stay intact,but it didn't.however,can u please tell me what should i change in order to make the permanent alliances trully permanent in the xml editor?
or to change the tech at least that permanent alliances are available?

[gdgrimm]

Originally posted by Quillan
In the first part, you are correct. A defensive pact is automatically ended when either party declares war. The game doesn't seem to care WHY they declared war, just that they did, so it will end the pact even if your ally declares war on the nation that attacked you because of the defensive pact. I do not know if this is intentional, or an oversight.

So signing a defensive pact is basically a one shot deal? It guarantees that the two civs will have an ally in the next war (assuming it starts defensively), but that immediately desolves it and you have to sign another one?

[Hauptman]

Originally posted by gdgrimm


So signing a defensive pact is basically a one shot deal? It guarantees that the two civs will have an ally in the next war (assuming it starts defensively), but that immediately desolves it and you have to sign another one?

Yes the pact is canceled at the onset of hostilities, thus keeping you from beeing dragged into multiple wars, or having a defensive pact string put you at war with a civ you have a pact with, wich could happen, and often did in civ3, even in a defensive war.

After hostilities cease, you can then resign a new pact, as chances are the "mutual military strugle" bonus makes them like you even more.

[Kc7mxo]

Originally posted by Quillan
My first thought is that it is an oversight, but long experience with Civ 3 makes me wonder. I had developed a rule of thumb in Civ 3 that I would never sign mutual protection pacts just because I would almost constantly be rooked into a war by them. I'd sign a MPP with Russia, and the next thing I know Russia would attack Greece. Before the next turn, I was at war with Greece because of a greek counterattack. After 7-10 turns, I'd be able to sign a peace treaty with Greece, but as long as Russia was at war with them, I'd be at war the next turn. Then if Greece convinced Rome to also attack Russia it would get worse. I'd have to wait until the 20 turn agreement was up and end it before I could get back to a permanent peace, and I hated it. I can't help but wonder if the current implementation is the way it is for this reason.

Uh, this is how alliances are SUPPOSED to work. If you didn't want to be Russia's MPP partner, why did you sign the treaty?

I LOVED the way the MPPs worked in civ3. Sure, I might get drawn into a war, but hey, i could actually have real allies. Civ4 defensive pacts are just one off deals that mean virtually nothing.

[Hauptman]

Originally posted by Kc7mxo


Uh, this is how alliances are SUPPOSED to work. If you didn't want to be Russia's MPP partner, why did you sign the treaty?

I LOVED the way the MPPs worked in civ3. Sure, I might get drawn into a war, but hey, i could actually have real allies. Civ4 defensive pacts are just one off deals that mean virtually nothing.

civ3 MPP blew chunks... I could sign a mpp with china, who would aslo have a MPP with russia. Russia then could have a mpp with greece. Greece invades me, thus making china at war with them. I send a boat over to greece and make lanfall. Russia joins the war with greece against me. I attack a russian unit and whammo, china declares war on me.

I had these MPP strings happen fairly often. They were quite silly, especially when i didnt start the war in the first place.

[aracuan_76]

differnece?

dear Hauptman,

then were is the differnece with the permanent alliance ?

[Hauptman]

permanent alliances;

a) you need to enable them with a custom game.

2) They are permanent. Can only be made between 2 civs AFTER they hold a defensive pact for a long time. and they join the civs together. You can see what he sees, your research is pooled together. your population is pooled together (for diplo and domination wins) And you share resources (basicly trade for free)


Either side can declare war or have war declared upon them and force the other team mate to join as well, since you now count as a single civ, with 2 leaders. Team projects, such as the space ship, now get pooled together.

the only way out of the permanent alliance is for 1 member to be utterly destroyed.

[bobshiznit]

In civ IV if I have a mutual protection pact with Ghandi and I declare war on Montezuma Ghandi will not help me. Even if Montezuma counterattacks and razes all of my cities. The way MPP's work in Civ IV is alot better and more realistic than the f'd up mpp circles in civ3

[MightyTiny]

Originally posted by bobshiznit
In civ IV if I have a mutual protection pact with Ghandi and I declare war on Montezuma Ghandi will not help me. Even if Montezuma counterattacks and razes all of my cities. The way MPP's work in Civ IV is alot better and more realistic than the f'd up mpp circles in civ3

That's because it's a DEFENSE pact, not military alliance. As it says in the in-game description of the pact, the defense pact is automatically canceled if either party declares war on somebody else.

That's why Gandhi did not help you; because it was YOU that declared the war against Monty. And because that action canceled the defense pact, there was no pact in effect when Monty counterattacs.

Had Monty attacked you first, then the defence pact would have ment that Gandhi would have automatically declared war on Monty. This too would have canceled the defense pact, but now you would have had a war ally.

So the defense pact essentially gives you a guarantee that the next time you are attacked, you'll have an ally in that war, unless you (or your defense pact partner) declare war on someone before that happens.

Personally I like the way the defense pacts work. That it's only a one-shot deal after which it must be re-negotiated makes such pacts more attractive, at least to me. I guess that's also much down to personal preference.

[Quillan]

You see, Kc7, that's what I wanted in Civ 3, a mutual DEFENSE pact. If I wanted a military alliance, I would have signed that. I signed to help defend Civ A from enemies, not to be forced into a war when Civ A suddenly decided to go aggressive on me. I also didn't like the way those pacts worked in those cases. Say I had an MPP with Russia, and Russia attacked Greece. On the greek turn, they could attack all the russian units they wanted, provided they were all within the greek borders. Hit one unit outside, bomb one improvement in Russian territory, and suddenly I was dragged into the war. If you want to go attack the Greeks, you get to live with the consequences; that's my view on the subject. The current implementation of defensive pacts fits what I feel they should be. You can still get world wars out of them, if enough of them are in the game.

[joncnunn]

One more vote for prefering Civ IV defensive pact to Civ 3 MPP.

[dac]

Apologies if this is a thread jack. I was attempting to use Permanent Alliances to my benefit, and got surprised. Here's the story.

I successfully executed a CS Slingshot, then started spreading out. I did whatever I had to do to keep Mao happy with me. Even managed to convert him to my religion. When I ran into the Egyptians (can't remember her name), our borders clashed early, and the religion thing didn't help, and my military was still small. She attacked. Got my good buddy to Mao to assist me, I took a couple of Egyptian cities and retired from the war. Mao remained at war with Egypt for the next 1000 years. Every time he asked for my help, I'd join in the war for about a dozen turns. I was kind of mean as I'd cherry pick cities after Mao had worn them down. Anyway, we finally divided up Egypt between and peace reigned upon the planet.

Cyrus's borders were starting to threaten my only horse resource, so I started pouring resources into elevating my culture on that border, to try and push him back, or at least preserve my horse resource. This annoyed Cyrus, so he attacked. Once again, I call upon my good buddy Mao. He attacks Cyrus. Then, Mao invites Kublai Kahn to the party, Cyrus is in a world of hurt. Then, Mao and K. Kahn form a permanent alliance! So, I go from # 1 in score, to number two (or three, depending on how you look at it). I've been cultivating Mao the whole game, never refused him anything, gave him gifts, etc, in hopes of becoming his permanant partner. But, as best I can tell, there are no three-ways in this game, Mao and K. Kahn are allied, and that's it. Well, I cannot match the two of them together, so even if they never attack me, I'll still lose, and nobody else on the planet likes me because I was so busy sucking up to Mao.

So, be careful what you wish for. Somebody else might get it.