Thoughts on Diplomatic States; Tell Me

[SlowwHand]

Talking MP with this.

I can really see the point of "Rah Rules" , but given you're in a non-Rah game, how do you view Alliances and Peace Treaties?

I'll make an alliance, but that doesn't mean I give free passage on my land for cities to be built.

Peace treaties are what I'm even more leery of.
I take a peace treaty to be just as it is defined in the Civ II guide.

"A peace treaty is in theory a permanent arrangement, in which you and your rival agree not to attack each other or even enter the other's territory with military units".

The difference being that in an alliance, your aid is expected should a war develop against your allies; in a peace treaty it's not expected.

Here's the rub.
Many MP player's offer peace because they're weak, and I've just stumbled upon their civ, as a for instance.
They have no intention on keeping the treaty once they build up some.
And that's crap, to me.
Offer a cease fire, if that's your intent.
If you break a peace treaty once, I'm forever suspicious.
I understand deception is part of the world; so please, no lectures required.

Another thing.
I will not exchange maps unless I've chosen alliance.
A peace treaty isn't going to cut the muster.
No way, no how. Don't even ask.

So what of the rest of you?
How do you view the treaties?

[War4ever]

well i for one don't trade maps often with people..... sometimes newbies wantto trade map.... sure i guess...saves me mapping their inevitable destruction...

treaties are ceasefires to me..... there is only one kind of treaty and thats an alliance.. even so...unlike the ai , your units aren't sent home , so even in an alliance i keep a war commitee on stand by

[SlowwHand]

The map requests amaze me.
I might meet up with someone near their Civ, but far from mine.
I offer peace maybe.
They refuse, and come back with a request to exchange maps.
Are you daft?, is what I'm thinking.

[Smash]

with "Rah's Rules" there are no surprises.There is no devious stuff.Sneaky yes,but not devious.Also no whoever meets first wins type thing.

I will trust an ally until I am given reason to do otherwise.

Anything else is approached cautiously.Not neccessarily all out war,but definitely on guard.

I have no problem with maps really.Cities aren't hard to find by other means and there is much to be learned.But I spose enemies should be in the dark.Sometimes its fun to encourage intruders.Many games are too peaceful....and I'd rather die a quick death than a slow painful one

[Rasputin]

i value the treaties as real, i know the others dont though.. Cease fire to me is jsut that, an end to agression temporarily to give time to work towards full peace.. Peace treaty is permanent end of all fighting..

alliance is permanent to me, providing my allys are good... if they dont come to my aids once allaince is off

[cavebear]

I don't usually use any diplomatic state other than strategic alliance, and I consider that to be a permanent arrangement unless both parties agree at some later point that the game will not play well under that arrangement. That's only happened a couple of times, and we agreed that there would be a withdrawal of units and no attacks for X number of turns afterwards.

I suppose that I would consider a cease fire or peace treaty if I suspected that the warfare was due to some misunderstanding and to give each time to work out borders or something. But normally, I expect some skirmishing to be part of that process.

[Rasputin]

getting a peace treaty can be quite handy if the other palyer is in Democracy. Very upsetting to the Senate to break Peace treaty !!!! Can cause a whole nation to collapse into rebellion.... VERY HANDY in MP !!!!

[arii]

I think a peace treaty should have some sort of time component to it. Somethink like: peace for the next 500 years.
Otherwise peace treaties are bound to be broken especialy if 1 is pulling ahead.

[SlowwHand]

The only thing that will make me break a peace treaty, is an act of aggression.

I consider putting settlers on my land to be just such an act.

[Rasputin]

that sort of peace treaty with a time limit is actually called a cease fire... Peace is supposed to be permanent !!!

Would be good if th eplayers could fix a time for the cease fire expiration

[rah]

An alliance, I will always honor, and won't dissolve without good warning. (and only in the end game) But yes, settler incursions with the intent to build a city will make me seriously think about the alliance. Except for that, I will allow any units to move through, and I will always trade maps with an ally.

Peace treaties are a matter of convience and are usually made just to buy time. They will be broken and I have no hard feelings when they are. I don't drop my guard.

Cease fires, don't know, never made one.

Map trading. In "rah" rules games, I will sometimes trade maps with people that I can trust not to give it to anyone else. (only a few people qualify to this trust level) and only if I feel I will benefit. (By trade, tech stealing or finding new ignored territory to settle)

RAH

[War4ever]

Rah loves to break treaties when his neighbor whom has done nothing to him all game builds the manhattan project...... he also likes to encroach on the neighbors soil...... but this was so long ago......maybe things have changed

[SlowwHand]

Well, hell.
I'd just be forced to burn down his Civ, take his women, and eat his old hound dog.

[drake]

Raz, really who are you trying to fool

I view peace treaties as a sign of good will towards nations. Not being friends necessarily, but lack of aggression towards one another. Alliances should be close to permanent. One shouldnt be started unless there's intent for it to last a long time.

Backstabbing someone whom you're at peace with is dirty pool, but backstabbing an ally shows that you can't be trusted. Players like this should be annihilated by their collective group.....

Honor is important to me in a civ game.......

[SlowwHand]

Are you a Tuatha De Danann member, incognito?