peace treaties and the military advisor - help requested

[hunterdust]

This may be a question with an easy solution, but I can't figure it out on my own...


Whenever I try to propose a peace treaty with another leader, and that leader turns it down, I cannot get back to playing the game without declaring war on that civilization. The leader will turn down my proposal, and I will have the option of leaving it at that. But when I click on that, my military advisor box pops up telling me I should go to war. I click on the NO box, and it brings me back to the previous section where I try to leave still on good terms with the other leader. But everything I do brings up the military advisor telling me to go to war.

The only way out is to agree with the advisor, which ends up annoying the other leader.

This is really frustrating and takes away a big part of the game, since I no longer feel comfortable offering a peace treaty.

I assume I must be missing something obvious, but I can't figure it out.

[Ethelred]

Your problem is that you didn't agree to peace term so you are at war.

You MUST make a peace agreement or its war. That may require that you PAY the other civ money. Don't go re-negatiating peace unless you are prepared to go to war. If the AI chooses to re-nenotiate peace they either tired of paying you or they think you should be paying them tribute. Pay it or go to war.

[hunterdust]

but...

What I don't understand is that I wasn't at war to begin with. I was friendly with the other tribe, and I made the proposal to sign a peace treaty. In Civilization 2, if the other leader didn't want to sign, it was just left at that. It was as if you didn't ask. Your standing with that particular tribe was unchanged. As it should be.

And why does it give you the option of backing out without starting war, only to have your military advisor basically overrule you? And, it even gives you the option of choosing to go against your military advisors recommendations and choose "NO, THEY ARE OUR FRIENDS" (Or something like that.)


So, why are those choices even available to you if you can't follow that path? That is what leads me to believe that I am missing something. Beside,s it is unrealistic the other way. I mean, if, say, the United States offered a formal peace treaty to some random nation and they didn't accept, that doesn't mean that thje two countries would automatically be at war.

[Ethelred]

Re: but...

Originally posted by hunterdust
Your standing with that particular tribe was unchanged. As it should be.

Why should it be unchanged? You chose to NOT have peace.

And why does it give you the option of backing out without starting war, only to have your military advisor basically overrule you?

He isn't overuling at all. He is telling you what you are doing. YOU the PLAYER have chose war over peace. You had the option of continueing negotiation. Instead you said lets go to war. People do it intentionally. YOU did it intentionaly even if unknowlingly each time you chose war over continued negotiation.

And, it even gives you the option of choosing to go against your military advisors recommendations and choose "NO, THEY ARE OUR FRIENDS" (Or something like that.)

And you chose otherwise. You chose war. If you REALLY thought they were your friends you would have continued peace negotiations. Often players chose to regnotiate in order to extort tribute from the AI. If they accidently hit the wrong button they are given the choice of war or continued negotiaton. Sometimes they decide the Civ is better left alive while paying little or no tribute and sometimes they decide they decide they would prefer to wipe them out. In that case they have not broken a treaty. They have merely chose not to continue one. They recieve no hit on their reputation for breaking a treaty. Unless they insisted on renogotaiting BEFORE the peace treaty's twenty turns were up.

So, why are those choices even available to you if you can't follow that path?

You can. YOU chose the path of war. You didn't make the other choice which simply closes the box and leaves back at negotiating.

That is what leads me to believe that I am missing something. Beside,s it is unrealistic the other way. I mean, if, say, the United States offered a formal peace treaty to some random nation and they didn't accept, that doesn't mean that thje two countries would automatically be at war.

It does in this game. The AI needs to know how things stand. No treaty means you are at war. Its starts out informaly when you meet a civ. The peace treaty is automatic and has no 20 turn minumum. If the AI decides you are an easy mark the AI may decide that you must pay tribute in some way to continue peace. You may do the same. In either case there is a twenty turn time limit for the treaty after which it becomes renegotaible again or it can continue but without the time limit.

Look get this one point clear.

YOU ARE PLAYING CIV III not Civ II.


Its a different game. If you choose to play Civ II while booting up Civ III you are going to get your arse kicked.

Adapt, evolve or go extinct.

[kring]

Re: but...

Originally posted by hunterdust
What I don't understand is that I wasn't at war to begin with. I was friendly with the other tribe, and I made the proposal to sign a peace treaty. In Civilization 2, if the other leader didn't want to sign, it was just left at that. It was as if you didn't ask. Your standing with that particular tribe was unchanged. As it should be.

The fact you made the proposal meant you were automatically renegotiating peace. You are automatically at peace with every civ you meet, even if it only lasts until the end of your turn. That is the default state of relationships within Civ3. The game operates on the belief that you wouldn't offer to renegotiate peace unless you felt that the current peace treaty needed changed.

[hunterdust]

Well, at the very elast, the wording of the choices should be changed. It makes it look like you can leave without declaring war, and without agreeing to their extortion for a peace treaty. I can overlook the unrealism of the treaty or war decision, but it shouldn 't give you the option of leaving if it isn't going to let you. And yes, it DOES give you the option of leaving. Because it gives THREE options: renegotiate peace, decalre war, or leave.

Why give that third option if you can't leave without doing either of the first two?

[Ethelred]

Well, at the very elast, the wording of the choices should be changed.

Well yes but it only took me once to figure it out. You seem to be banging your head against the wall just to be REAAALLLLY sure that it was the impact against the wall that caused the pain in your head the last three times you did it.

Me I just reloaded the game and tried it the other way.

[JohnM2433]

Yeah, diplomatic relations in Civ III work differently than in Civ II. You are either at war or at peace with every civ you know. You start out at peace, and stay that way until one of you declares war on the other, attacks the other -- or cancels the peace treaty.

When you click on a peace treaty, or any other "expired" treaty (I'll explain my use of that term in a moment), it is automatically cancelled and brough up for renegotiation. When you do this for a peace treaty, your advisor should first ask you "Are you sure you want to renegotiate peace with the ____?", IIRC. If you and the other civ do not agree to a new peace treaty, you will automatically be at war.

All treaties last 20 turns from the time they are first negotiated. After the 20 turns, either civ can bring the treaty up for renegotiation. The way you do this is to click on the treaty under the "Active" tab in negotiations. If you and the other civ do not renegotiate the treaty, it is cancelled. The peace treaty is special in that it is already "expired" when you first meet the civ -- you can cancel it as soon as you want to, without hurting your reputation, as long as you have no other deals with that civ. However, if you negotiate a new peace treaty, either with a civ you are already at peace with or one you are at war with, it will last for 20 turns, like all others.

Going to war with a civ you have any "unexpired" treaty with -- especially a peace treaty -- hurts your rep. I'm not sure how this works if you renegotiate peace -- since only the human player closes negotiations, does (s)he take the blame if war results? (Obviously the peace treaty won't be broken, but other deals may.) Maybe whichever civ cancels the current peace treaty gets the blame. I've never seen the AI try to renegotiate peace, incedentally.

If you want to demand something from another civ, there's an option to do that without renegotiating peace -- "Accept this deal or face the consequences!", IIRC. However, you can't demand that they accept a deal in which you pay them anything; the only way to do that is peace renegotiation, which stinks, as you can't threaten them to accept the deal and bluff. One might think they would be more willing to give in to your demands if there were something in it for them other than continued peace, but there's no safe way to find out. There's also no way to offer a counterproposal to another civ's demand for tribute.

Also, there's no way to propose to extend a deal for another 20 turns without automatically cancelling it. This is indeed confusing when it comes to peace treaties. But still... to renegotiate peace with a civ you already have peaceful relations with, you have to select the treaty from the "Active" tab. That should be a big clue that you were already at peace with them.

[kring]

Originally posted by JohnM2433


All treaties last 20 turns from the time they are first negotiated. After the 20 turns, either civ can bring the treaty up for renegotiation. The way you do this is to click on the treaty under the "Active" tab in negotiations. If you and the other civ do not renegotiate the treaty, it is cancelled. The peace treaty is special in that it is already "expired" when you first meet the civ -- you can cancel it as soon as you want to, without hurting your reputation, as long as you have no other deals with that civ. However, if you negotiate a new peace treaty, either with a civ you are already at peace with or one you are at war with, it will last for 20 turns, like all others.

Going to war with a civ you have any "unexpired" treaty with -- especially a peace treaty -- hurts your rep. I'm not sure how this works if you renegotiate peace -- since only the human player closes negotiations, does (s)he take the blame if war results? (Obviously the peace treaty won't be broken, but other deals may.) Maybe whichever civ cancels the current peace treaty gets the blame. I've never seen the AI try to renegotiate peace, incedentally.

Peace treaties last until cancelled. The only exception is if you negotiate a peace treaty that has a per turn component; then, it has a 20 turn limit.

You do hurt your reputation if you cancel a peace treaty; the only exception is if you are declaring war due to trespassing after at least 2 Consecutive turns of asking them to leave.

[zulu9812]

Other deals will also last longer than 20 turns if both you and the AI don't renegotiate - but there's a preference in Preferences () for always renegotiate after 20 turns.

[JohnM2433]

I didn't mean to say/imply that a treaty automatically ends after the 20 turns are up, only that it can then be cancelled/renegotiated at any time (they're the same thing, since cancelling the treaty automatically opens up renegotiations and vice versa). That was what I meant when I talked about "expired" treaties; sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

[Willem]

Re: but...

Originally posted by hunterdust
What I don't understand is that I wasn't at war to begin with. I was friendly with the other tribe, and I made the proposal to sign a peace treaty. In Civilization 2, if the other leader didn't want to sign, it was just left at that. It was as if you didn't ask. Your standing with that particular tribe was unchanged. As it should be.

And why does it give you the option of backing out without starting war, only to have your military advisor basically overrule you? And, it even gives you the option of choosing to go against your military advisors recommendations and choose "NO, THEY ARE OUR FRIENDS" (Or something like that.)


So, why are those choices even available to you if you can't follow that path? That is what leads me to believe that I am missing something. Beside,s it is unrealistic the other way. I mean, if, say, the United States offered a formal peace treaty to some random nation and they didn't accept, that doesn't mean that thje two countries would automatically be at war.

If you were already at peace with the civ, then of course your only option would be war. There's no such thing as neutrality in Civ III, you either are or you aren't. Once you have a peace treaty, it will remain in place until an act of war by either side. The only exception is when you have signed a peace treaty after a war. But after 20 terms, there is no more negotiation possible, only those two options