Announcement

**Venger** · November 13, 2001, 20:32

Re: Honoring Mutual Protection pact should not be manditory

Originally posted by SuiteSisterMary
As it stands, if a pact partner goes to war, your civ automagically declares war.

It should, instead, offer you some choices.

Of course it should.

Our "brothers" the Greeks have declared war on the Japanese! Our mutual protection pact requires us to declare war as well!

Yes! We must honour our treaty obligations!

Or suffer the consequences...
They got themselves into this mess, they can get themselves out of it. (diplomatic hit; major with former pact brother, smaller with all other civs)

**Kc7mxo** · November 13, 2001, 21:31

Not to mention, the single greatest non-aggression pact ended treacherously when the Nazis invaded their former ally. Breaking these treaties happens and should be allowed with simple, smart consequences. To disallow it makes for a rather simplistic and unrealistic diplomacy model.

Non aggression pact is a bit different from a mutual defense treaty. And protecting your pact brother isn't about whether a war is honorable or not. Its about you and him agreeing to defend each other if either of you came under attack. Whatever the situation. You don't like, don't sign it.

I LIKE the forced declaration of war due to the pacts.

**Raleigh** · November 13, 2001, 22:24

Didnt' Civ2 give you the opportunity to disavow your pact? It's not so far fetched, so why not give us the opportunity to do the same thing when our brother is attacked, for a hit to reputation of course - that is if I can find out if there is a way to find out your reputation.

**Venger** · November 13, 2001, 22:41

This treaty isn't worth the paper its printed on...

Originally posted by Kc7mxo

Non aggression pact is a bit different from a mutual defense treaty. And protecting your pact brother isn't about whether a war is honorable or not. Its about you and him agreeing to defend each other if either of you came under attack. Whatever the situation. You don't like, don't sign it.

This non-aggression pact was a little more than your typical NA pact - it included the secret protocols for the division of Poland. In World War I, Italy "betrayed" Germany and Austria and the Triple Alliance and joined the Allies.

Nations when the time come will choose the side of their bread that gets buttered...

I LIKE the forced declaration of war due to the pacts.

I'd like some real options that resemble the real world...

Venger

**Peterk** · November 14, 2001, 09:31

Well, there is sort of a way to back out of the MPP.

Just make peace with the country you're now at war with on the first turn of the war. There's a hit on reputation with your pact brother that is similar to the hit you would get if you refused to declare war in the first place.

**Dev** · November 14, 2001, 09:41

I'm all for enforced pact honorship, allowing you to worm out of a pact would just be another way for the PC to easily cheat the AI.
I bet you wouldn't be too happy either when your loyal ally through 1000 years suddenly dumps your pact for no other reason than a stupid 1 in 633 dice roll.

MPP shouldn't only trigger when war is declared though and not upon attacks on units in existing wars.

/dev

**Grumbold** · November 14, 2001, 10:27

I don't think it can be done better than the way EU does it. No matter what treaties you have locked away in a cupboard it requires a positive act for a nation to formally declare war upon another. There is no automatic 'cant-change-your-mind-now' clause that another country can invoke to declare war on your behalf. This is particularly applicable when you have treaties with both nations involved. Just because A declares war on B it cannot dictate which ally you choose to support since either way one treaty is going to be broken.

Just look at the current Nato situation. America is attacked and 90% of Nato fall over themselves with verbal declarations of full support while doing precisely nothing to help. Alliances are only as strong as the political reality.

**Dev** · November 14, 2001, 10:38

EU lacks the trade feature :\

The EU Alliance/Wartime diplomacy is an order of magnitude better than Civ3 though.

/dev

**Grumbold** · November 14, 2001, 10:44

Oh yes, strictly talking about the diplomatic treaties it has and how they are implemented. The -200 to +200 scale would make it much easier to determine how demanding the Civ would be in trade talks as well, but that is another discussion.

**AuraSeer** · November 14, 2001, 14:24

The way it works now makes sense to me.

Right now I'm playing the Americans. I've got a pact with England, and the Russians are about the same strength as either of us.

If Russia attacks England, England is going to send them an envoy: "Bad move, boy! We've got a MP pact with America. Now both of us are gonna kick your ass." Russia, hearing this, knows to expect an American attack, so they automatically declare war on me too. (This is how I conceptualize it, anyway, even though the game's wording is the other way around.)

If I want to break the pact, I can offer Russia a peace treaty on the first turn of the war. They'll have the opportunity to demand stuff from me in exchange, which is realistic. (Russia sez: "You had the bad taste to ally with our enemies, so we're going to crush you both. Oh, you want to remain neutral? Well then, it's gonna cost you....")

**ChrisShaffer** · November 14, 2001, 14:51

Originally posted by AuraSeer
If I want to break the pact, I can offer Russia a peace treaty on the first turn of the war. They'll have the opportunity to demand stuff from me in exchange, which is realistic. (Russia sez: "You had the bad taste to ally with our enemies, so we're going to crush you both. Oh, you want to remain neutral? Well then, it's gonna cost you....")

The problem is, if even a single Russian unit attacks an English unit later during the same turn (or on the very next turn), I automatically am forced to declare war on Russia again. As long as I have a Mutual Protection Pact with England, every time an English unit is attacked, I automatically declare war...

**challenge** · November 14, 2001, 16:22

So make peace with the Rus and then bail on the MD pact. You look bad to other civs (and well you should since you are an unreliable gutless wonder who is only a friend when it doesn't cost you anything), but you're not likely to be offered another MD pact since you ARE an unreliable gutless wonder who is a friend only when it doesn't cost you anything.

If you want out of the pact, then you shouldn't get into them in the first place. A good rule of thumb is: If the other country has no strategic value (no resource trading critical to the empire, no mutual enemy in striking distance, etc.) why are you in a MD Treaty anyway? Only enter an agreement when it is useful to you, and get out (preferably before it's activated) when it ceases to be so.

Simple global strategy at work here, folks.

**BigBopper** · November 14, 2001, 16:40

MP Treaties

Just to clear things up, (this took me a long time to figure out) You can get out of Mutual Protection treaties by renegotiating peace with your "ally". Once this happens all treaties are wiped, and normal peace declared. (I think, I have never had to go to war) Of course this does cause you to go down a notch in everyones eyes, but if you can't or don't want to go to war you can use this. Then of course this could cause serious trouble if multiple civ's declare war on you.

This happened to me once when many countries had MP's and I didn't, one country started a war with me and within 5 turns most of the world was against me. Of course I got slaughtered. (although defending against massive waves of enemies was fun for awhile)

**Venger** · November 14, 2001, 22:13

Originally posted by Dev
I'm all for enforced pact honorship, allowing you to worm out of a pact would just be another way for the PC to easily cheat the AI.
I bet you wouldn't be too happy either when your loyal ally through 1000 years suddenly dumps your pact for no other reason than a stupid 1 in 633 dice roll.

I don't think it should be based on random probability, but on several factors:

1) Most important - likelihood for success
2) Past history with likely opponent
3) Potential gain
4) Potential cost

This is pretty much the short list for whether or not to go to war, protection pact or not...the protection pacts biggest asset should be that during negotiation and AI decision making that it's considered as a potential cost of going to war with any one civ...

Venger

**Venger** · November 14, 2001, 22:15

Originally posted by AuraSeer
The way it works now makes sense to me.

The way it works now pretty much explains World War I...

Venger

Announcement

Honoring Mutual Protection pact should not be manditory

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment