Civ asks for help in war then signs treaty?

[Amarsir]

I'm no history major, but didn't France enlist the USA for help in Vietnam and then bail?

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by Amarsir
I'm no history major, but didn't France enlist the USA for help in Vietnam and then bail?

Not really. the French agreed to partition Indo-china and walked away from the mess then the US stepped in to stop Vietnam being reunited by force.

A better example might be the Finns or the Rumanians turning on the Germans towards the end of WW2 in order to try to please the advancing Russians.

[Unimatrix11]

Not the Finns - they just signed peace (oops - thats the thread's topic, but i trying to save the Fin's honor anyway) - the Romanians, Italians, Bulgarians all tried to actually switch sides - the Russian were not the one's to accept such behaviour and refused to treat them as allies - different with Italy and the western allies...

[Amarsir]

Not really. the French agreed to partition Indo-china and walked away from the mess then the US stepped in to stop Vietnam being reunited by force.

So France decided it wasn't their problem and went to have a cigarette. Then the US decided to offer help that no one had really asked for. That actually sounds far more plausible on both accounts than my prior understanding, and I thaink you for the correction.

Romanians, Italians, Bulgarians all tried to actually switch sides - the Russian were not the one's to accept such behaviour and refused to treat them as allies

Well, can't blame 'em there. Having Italy on your side hasn't exactly been a good luck charm, historically.

(Forgive me, I'm having a long day and I'm a little punchy tonight.)

Actually though, that reminds me of a good example of what we were talking about. Prussia vs Austria-Hungary, around the rise of Bismark. Prussia asks Italy for help, but when Austria proves stronger than expected Prussia makes peace and leaves Italy on it's own. Italy is forced to surrender and is arguably worse off than had they stayed out in the first place.

I think that's right.

Anyway, back to the game: My own pet peeve is not so much the signing peace or even the eventual turning on me. It's the fact that they can ask for assistance so may times for the same thing, each time adding a -1 to our relationship count. Catherine needs to learn that "no" means "no."

[greenday_234]

A few interesting things to note about the Vietnam situation are the South Vietnamese felt neither here nor there about who was their leader, until that is over course the U.S. installed what turned out to be a teranical facist dictator in the south that often engaged in genocides of his own people. Then the some in the south began to dislike us for installing Diem I think his name was and thats why you saw so many Southern vietnamese switching sides to the Vietcong.

Also another little known fact, Ho Chi Min was in fact at one time a capitalist and had numerous times requested help from the U.S. to help them throw off France. All of which were ignored. If memory surves me it goes all the way back to President Wilson. It was only after these numerous denials of assistance that Min turned Communist.

[Vince278]

This problem just happened to me today. Good thing I didn't help.

[Ijuin]

The easy solution would be to impose a 10 turn limit on such alliances. In other words, if A asks B to join A's war against C, then both A and B will not be allowed to ask for peace with C until at least ten turns have elapsed.

[Vince278]

Allies in war should declare peace by mutual consent. If one declares peace then their ally should be given the option to agree/disagree without penalty.

[wardhali]

MY beef with the game system is that one cannot OFFER to go to war or stop trading in iplomacy, many situations, i would love to say Give me this this and this and i'll declare war on your enemy, not wait for them to ask, then get nothing but a couple of relations points for it!

somethimes i think that the AI manipulates the system of asking for war and embargos and forcing you to get negative relation points

many times i wasnt to have a system for telling the AI how i feel about it, AKA have a points system so that the AI can see that i am not too likely to trade with it and stop forcing more negative points!!!!



basicly i think thAT the diplo system is WAY unbalanced in favor of the AI and it foprces the player to take a reactionary stance.

just my 5 cents, (counting inflation)

[joncnunn]

I'm afraid it's kind of historical for countries to bail on their allies:

Italy renegned on it's pre Great War central power alliance when the shooting started and about a year later declared to join the allies.

[It's possible that if Italy had followed their obligations of their treaties with Germany, Austria-Hungrary, and Serbia and declared war on France when the shooting started that the Central Powers would have won. (Central Powers wouldn't have needed troops along their border with Italy while France would have needed some along their border.)]

In WW II, Italy surrendered much earlier than the other Axis powers; as soon as we landed in the main land of Italy.
Their bailing may have shortened WW II in Europe by a few weeks due to Germany having to rush a few divisions to Italy from their other fronts.

[joncnunn]

wardhali, I think the AI is trying to rack up negative points at times so they can cancel their deals with you.

On the point system, the worst that happens when you decline a military alliance is an additional -2 points added.

If you accept, you get plus points with that nation, but negative points with all the nations that liked the one you just declared war on. "You declared war on our friend!"

[royrules22]

Actually another historical example. Hitler and Stalin had a peace deal. And than later on Hitler launched Operation Barbossa (or was it earlier) that forced Stalin back and forced his hand into joining UK.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by wardhali
somethimes i think that the AI manipulates the system of asking for war and embargos and forcing you to get negative relation points

Yep. Peace-mongering and isolationism is appearently discouraged.

[armchairknight]

Re: Civ asks for help in war then signs treaty?

Originally posted by Rook
Has anybody ever been asked to go to war with some enemy, then the very next turn the civ signs a treaty leaving you to duke it out with the other guy?

I have on several occasions been asked to go to war, but I refuse and the very next turn they get all kissy with each other. It leaves me to wonder what would happen if I DID go to war. Would I be left to fight alone or would my help bolster my allies confidence so that he doesn't sue for peace?

Well, I have had a defensive pact with Cyrus which forced me into a war with Isabella. While Isabella invaded my realm, Cyrus spent his time quickly fortifying the borders he shared with me. Neither Cyrus nor Isabella carried on any visible acts of aggression against the other. It was Isabella and I the entire way. I've never agreed to a defensive pact since.

[Ari]

Originally posted by wardhali

somethimes i think that the AI manipulates the system of asking for war and embargos and forcing you to get negative relation points

many times i wasnt to have a system for telling the AI how i feel about it, AKA have a points system so that the AI can see that i am not too likely to trade with it and stop forcing more negative points!!!!

basicly i think thAT the diplo system is WAY unbalanced in favor of the AI and it foprces the player to take a reactionary stance.

just my 5 cents, (counting inflation)

I can't agree more. If I want the AI to convert to a religion or stop trading or declare war, I'll need to give them some serious incentive. Indeed, usually I simply can't offer them enough to do what I want. But god forbid they ask me for something and I turn them down.
Adopt hereditary rule?! You're gonna realllllly have to sweeten the pot for that one. But the AI never even considers that it might have to give me some kind of incentive.

Meanwhile, if I'm ahead, I'll be hated for not giving presents and if I'm behind I'll be hated for not giving tribute. The AI, on the other hand, will always refuse to give you something (and then hate you for having asked).

What I miss is SMAC's way of doing things. When one faction wanted to enlist you in a war, they'd often offer *you* tech, money, even a pact of brotherhood.