forced peace? aargh!

[Rancidlunchmeat]

Well... Then I am forced to take back what I said previously and apologize to those involved.

DAMN YOU, PETER!!!

I've never been in a situation since 2.08 where any interaction between warring factions/alliances/vassals wasn't rather logical (even if it wasn't what I wanted to have happen).

It happened all the time prior to the 2.08 patch, to the extent that I would often forgo Feudalism because I didn't want Vassals to come in and start screwing up my shznit.

If its still happening.. that's interesting. Maybe I'll have to re-read this thread again.

DAMN YOU PETER!!

[patcon]

Since my literary attempts have left you confused, I shall be more concise.
Playing Warlords 2.08.
Situation:
1. Wang Kon (with vassals Shaka and Montezuma) and Ghandi (with vassal Peter) are at peace with good relations.
2. Wang Kon and Ghandi are independently at war with both Frederick and his former vassal Isabella. (This vassalage was dissolved as a result of territory lost during the war.)
3. Wang Kon declares peace with both Frederick and Isabella, with Frederick becoming his vassal.
4. Peace is immediately declared between Ghandi and both Frederick and Isabella, without any chance for Ghandi to decline either or both. Ghandi was able to immediately redeclare war on Isabella, but Indian units had already been removed from Spanish territory
My complaints:
1. I can understand the logic of why Ghandi might (and probably would) want to make peace with Frederick in this case to avoid going to war with his new master; but I would like to be presented with the option to do so, not be forced into it.
2. I can understand why Ghandi might want to make peace with Isabella when Wang Kon did since Spain would be able to better defend herself, but again there should be an option.

[Snotty]

playing as Asoka on a 18 civ world map, Im about to take Paris when the sneaky sneaky french man capitulates to Catherine (my closest ally) thus keeping Paris under French control damn him

[Krill]

And that is the reason that I play with Vassals disabled...

[Diadem]

Your story is very strange patcon. Isabella just made peace with Frederick? Didn't become a vassal?

Then your war with her should not end. Without vassals involved it works just like any normal war, which doesn't end in such a situation.

The other one with Frederick is weird as well. I've only experimented a lot with vassals on the mongols campaing, perhaps it works different there. But in my experience when someone I'm at war with becomes a vassal of someone else, that someone else declares me, so I have war with both, instead of peace with both.

but perhaps that's only for peaceful vassalages.

[patcon]

Originally posted by Diadem
Your story is very strange patcon. Isabella just made peace with Frederick? Didn't become a vassal?

No, Isabella was not at war with Frederick. They were both independently under attack, independently, by Wang Kon (+Montezuma+Shaka) and Ghandi (+Peter). Isabella became a vassal of Frederick, presumably to try to gain some protection. This vassalage was dissolved through loss of territory as Wang Kon and Ghandi continued their attack against them. Soon after this, Frederick became a vassal of Wang Kon (presumably by capitulation) and Isabella made peace with Wang Kon without becoming his vassal. And Ghandi (+Peter) had peace "declared" with both Frederick and Isabella, with Indian and Russian forces evicted from German and Spanish territory. Ghandi was allowed to immediately redeclare war on Isabella, but then had to move troops back into attacking position

[Tattila the Hun]

Heh, had a fun thing happen last game. I, and couple of others are at war with Germany, pounding Bismarck to the ground. Well, he capitulates to Mansa, not at war, so naturally Mansa declares war on me, and Peter...

Just so happens, in the same turn, Mansa comes demanding, that I stop trading with Peter. Nah, I say, but... What you say we agree to a cease-fire? Sure, it cost me few goldpieces, but it was worth it. So him and Peter are left to slug it out...

There really needs to be a

"We have taken Civ X under our protection. What do you have to say about that?"

"My head would look good on a pike."(They declare war)
"There shall be peace in our time!"

[senowen]

Last night, this happened twice to me, and once to the AI, with Warlords and patch. Me and my vassal Genghis (he had an island city I didn't feel bothered to deal with), plus Cyrus, Mehmed and Mansa were at war with Napoleon and his two vassals, Huayac (sp?) and Brennus. I had a defensive pact (I don't think it was permanent alliance) with Cyrus. Huayac repudiates the vassalage with Napoleon, declares peace with Cyrus and becomes his vassal. I'm now at peace with Huayac, without my consent. Then a few turns later Napoleon capitulates to someone (can't remember), now I'm at peace with that little bastard, again without my consent. WTF?
I got my revenge though. Brennus capitulates to me a turn later and everyone is forced to declare peace with Brennus, except Brennus' best buddy Saladin who Brennus is forced to declare war against because Mansa got me to declare war against him a few turns before.
Reminds me of European history. But I don't like the forced peace part. Everyone should get to chose, including the AI. Could create a situation were one needs to carefully think who one brings into a war. You could end up at war with your ally if you force a capitulation against a civ they hate.

[Jaybe]

Before Firaxis gets the idea that no-one likes the unpredictability of forced war/peace all you players are complaining about, ...
let me state for the record that I [b]Like[/i] this unpredictability in Warlords 2.08! Such unpredictability should be extended to some non-political fields, as well.