Machiavelli Institute: Mutual Protection Pacts

[Shiber]

Considering the current rate of tech advancement we can expect to learn Nationalism perhaps during this term. As you all know, with Nationalism come Mutual Protection Pacts.
I would like to ask the nice people of Apolytonia: what is your approach towards MPPs? Do you find that they could be useful sometimes, or would you rather keep away from MPPs at all cause?
Here are some interesting points for discussion to begin with:

• Can MPPs be useful?
• If a civilization such as Germany offers to sign an MPP (which IIRC lasts 20 turns) for two industrial age techs, should we take it?
• I find it thoughtful that the same tech that enables such a dangerous diplomatic action also provides cheap and available defenders (riflemen).
  Is it really that bad to sign an MPP or do you rather think that with riflemen and a rapid response team of cavalries we can defend our borders successfully should we enter an unexpected war?

I hope that this thread will evolve into a fruitful discussion. Thank you!

[Arnelos]

MPPs are most useful in the following two cases:

1. Form an MPP with a small and vulnerable civ on the other side of a larger opponent. If the large opponent attacks the small civ, you are given a free war on the larger civ and he has his offensive forces concentrated away from you.

2. You want to go to war with a civ and you think that you can wipe him out in a protracted war. However, you are concerned that he will draw in allies against you should you go to war with him.... Solution: form MPPs with several of his neighbors and get him to declare war on you (preferably through the use of espionage).

Otherwise, I have found few uses for MPPs (unless you REALLY need cash and there's a civ willing to pay you big bucks for one).

[Apocalypse]

Of course sign one with Germany. Not many Civs can defeat Germany right now and we share a fairly long border with them.

[Shiber]

What about if the deal was with France? The prize remains the same: two industrial age techs (this is a hypothetical situation, I'm not actually expecting France to be on the leading edge of technology in the next era). In that case it's effectively a bet: we bet our ability to defend our borders against a surprise attack against two industrial age techs. Is the bet worth it then?
My answer would be yes.

[Meshelic]

I think a MPP with Germany could be a good decision for us. It's true that our border with them is long.

I usually see the MPP as beneficial, only if the other nation you sign with you believe you can trust.

But can't you get a black mark if you enter into a war that you really can't follow through on for your ally and have to drop out? I doubt this would happen to us as we are very powerful, BUT just for questions sake?

MPP's are good things, ah yes

[Robber Baron]

As I understand them, MPPs compel you, basically, to declare wars by drawing you into any conflict a partner stirs up.
If we signed one with Germany, and then Germany declared war on, for example, the Aztecs, would we have to go to war against the Aztecs (assuming the Aztecs counterattaced by way of defense)?. If so, then we'd be hostage to Germany's good behavior (and we all know Bismark cannot be trusted to stay out of war for long). I realize that one can get away with a basically token military effort, if one chooses (though a token effort is expected), and still be honoring the MPP. But we'd still be at war, accumulating war weariness. And any outstanding trades we had with those we went to war with would be severed, severely impairing our reputation.
Is this right?

[Aggie]

You are right RB, thats why I really dislike MPP, but if the price was right and with the right people I could see one. However sucha decision can't really me made until we see what the situation is later. I could see on ewith germany since with them as an ally we get free reign to do what we desire.
Aggie

[ManicStarSeed]

Originally posted by Robber Baron
...
If we signed one with Germany, and then Germany declared war on, for example, the Aztecs, would we have to go to war against the Aztecs ...
Is this right?

What a wonderful excuse to annex those old American cities...

Mss

[ManicStarSeed]

Originally posted by Aggie
.... I could see on ewith germany since with them as an ally we get free reign to do what we desire.

Yes, but on the other hand, signing a MMP with such a blood thirsty civ?... You know he is chomping on the bit, just waiting, to... well.... pounce on someone. He is the one of the most unstable civs... He would love one. I would not be suprised if old Bismark will just turn around and pick a fight.

If that is the case, how is this for an idea...

lets pick a fight with france right after the MPP with Germany, crush france and then turn around and pick a fight with either the aztecs or the english. I'd perfer the english as we would be in a better position to get to them first. We can then annex aztec occupied america. Not granting germany a ROP will eat up the German unit moves being one step behind the next oppurtunity. We must have good alternate routes for our troops to travel. We have to keep all wars ocillating maximum of 5-7 turns of war with 5-10 turns peace.
Mss

[ManicStarSeed]

If you really want to mix it up, sign a MPP with Babalon, Rome or Russia. That will get us mixed up in Anabanana Minor....

Rome will become an issue, but I have a feeling Russia will be a bigger problem.
MPPing a way to prune Russia will be good. I would like to see us nurture babylon at russia's (or rome's) expense.

Mss

[notyoueither]

MPPs are Russian roulette with the Empire.

The problem is you never know what other MPPs are signed between AIs 1 or 2 turns from now.

Sign with Germany. Bismark attacks the Aztecs (Bismark is very volatile). We could find ourselves at war with 2, 3 or 5 powers within 3 or 4 turns. That's not quite a worst case, but it is very possible.

/Edit. I never sign them.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Robber Baron
As I understand them, MPPs compel you, basically, to declare wars by drawing you into any conflict a partner stirs up.

Not quite right. The enemy has to attack your MPP partner in his territory. Maybe in neutral territory as well, been a long while since I was in one (MPP agreement).

At which point you declare war. No choice is given.

[ManicStarSeed]

Yeah compelled as in...

"You just declared war"...



Mss

[Togas]

We should only sign an MPP if we are comitted to being a military/conquest civ, and we're OK with switching to a Communist or Monarchist government in the midst of the long world war that we'd be dragged into.

For the duration of the pact we cannot escape from war unless our enemy is destroyed.

I never get into these pacts myself because I cannot control the ending of a war. If I were to fight a small power that could be conquered in less than 20 turns, I would just attack it myself or bring in an ally.

MPP are really geared towards protection -- a discouragement to other nations to attack you. But if your partner is militeristic or easy prey, be prepared to be forced into a war you didn't plan on, were ill-prepared to fight, and unable to stop.

--Togas

[UnOrthOdOx]

I am flat out against MPP's

I never use them, they are a sign of weakness, nothing more. Germany should be the last person we want to sign with as well. Rest assured that they will go knocking on someones door and draw us into a war we do not wish.

All MPP's do is remove our ability to choose who we fight when. Especially when signed with an aggressive Civ.