Read the MPP Contract Before You Sign

[Catt]

Let me add my $0.02. It's been a while, but I'm pretty sure attacking a unit in its territory or in neutral / third party territory will trigger that unit's MPPs. In other words, you may safely attack all units within your own cultural borders without fear of triggering an MPP - but bombarding that pesky destroyer which keeps coming to shore, bombarding, and then evacuating into "international waters" will trigger the MPP.

Also, although the "must attack unit" rule is generally true, I've found that if I sign up an MPP while I am at war, and my enemy has units in my territory when I sign up the MPP, then my new MPP partner will immeidately declare war and come to my protection (as in jshelr's example) without an attack occuring. It may actually require that enemy units be in territory and have completed an attack (and used up all movement points?), because it doesn't seem like units in transit will always elicit the immediate declaration, but my point is that sometimes a partner's agreement to an MPP will result in an immediate declaration of war.

Finally, the MPP is the one treaty that simply can't be ignored - by you or the AI. The only way to end it before 20 turns run is to go to war with your MPP partner. You can freely make peace with a mutual enemy without destroying the MPP -- it will survive -- but you will almost assuredly be right back at war the next turn (and violate your 20-turn peace agreement) when the enemy attacks your MPP partner.

Catt

[DeepO]

Catt, I beg to differ regarding the attack in third party territory. I admit I'm not 100% sure as it was a couple of months ago, but in one of my games I was fighting off some civ (say the Germans) in another civ's (say the French) territory, when the French had MPPs with both me and the Germans. Eventually, the worker bait for the Germans made the French declare war. And neutral fighting surely does not trigger the MPP, that one I observed only a few weeks ago while ending MT IV.

However, it is entirely possible that the MPP partners declare war without being obliged by the system, that I saw happening many times before. When in a war, signing a MPP with a civ that wants a piece of the cake makes him declare war as well, because he feels backed by you. This does not mean that he is forced to, he just sees an opportunity to join. Many times, these MPPs are cheap, a MPP+ROP without any gpt is possible. In the cases where an AI does not really want to join the war, it is either extremely expensive (think 1000 gpt, a few techs, and lux), or simply not possible. Military aliances can be cheaper at that moment.

DeepO

[Catt]

Originally posted by DeepO
Catt, I beg to differ regarding the attack in third party territory. I admit I'm not 100% sure as it was a couple of months ago, but in one of my games I was fighting off some civ (say the Germans) in another civ's (say the French) territory, when the French had MPPs with both me and the Germans. Eventually, the worker bait for the Germans made the French declare war. And neutral fighting surely does not trigger the MPP, that one I observed only a few weeks ago while ending MT IV.

Could very well be true - I haven't run across the situation in a long time. I could have a bad memory (I think my wife would eliminate the "could" from that clause ) and/or it could have been an undocumented change in one of the patches - because I have a pretty clear memory (again - subject to my wife's caveat ) of attacking an enemy unit in unclaimed land and triggering an MPP. I was so surprised that I reloaded and ran a few experiments - bombarding / attacking ships in international waters, attacking units in 3rd party territory, etc. This was all a long time ago (could have been as far back as 1.16f or even 1.07f).

Maybe someone with access to the game could dig up a saved game and run a few quick experiments?

However, it is entirely possible that the MPP partners declare war without being obliged by the system, that I saw happening many times before. When in a war, signing a MPP with a civ that wants a piece of the cake makes him declare war as well, because he feels backed by you. This does not mean that he is forced to, he just sees an opportunity to join.

Good point - I hadn't considered that, and I'm sure it happens all the time.

Catt

[DeepO]

I have access to the game ATM, and would like to test it... however I'm in the middle of MT V(quite literally, it is still running in the background), and I can't remember if I have some game laying around where there were MPPs... I clean out my saves folder from time to time... I'll take a look when possible, because this intrigues me, if we both have different memories on this, someone's memory has to be wrong. And if your wife would know me, she might as well say my memory isn't very accurate from time to time neither

Now, if only I would remember when it happened in the MT IV game, it could look it up easily. But I have some 50 saves from that game wasting space on my HDD...

DeepO

[DeepO]

I just tested it (sorry it took a while ), and I was right. You can safely attack any unit in neutral, or in third party's territory without triggering the MPPs that unit's civ has. This includes bombing, so you can bomb enemy ships outside of their territorial waters without them triggering their MPPs.

There is one thing I didn't came around to test, as I couldn't find a good save, and that is whether it is allowed to bomb a hostile unit in the MPP partner's territory. I know you can attack it, and would think that bombing is also allowed (as long as you don't hit anything other than the unit, of course. If you bomb a road away you declare war!), but I'm not 100% sure.

DeepO

[Catt]

Thanks for checking when you could have been playing.

Catt

[Capt Dizle]

One of the gross flaws in Civ3 game design is that there are no factors that lead one into conflict other than the desire/need to get bigger and the inane diplomatic model. MPP bah!

Throughout the history of the world conflicts between civs/nations occured due to many factors none of which Firaxis managed to put in the game.

Maybe next time. At least some game developers are aware of this, in EU you had religion as an element of gameplay. Medieval Total War will have crusades. Firaxis thinks the sum effect of religion on world history amounts to a need to build temples.

I am not saying you couldn't make a good game out of the concept of having a temple building contest, but gee whiz.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
One of the gross flaws in Civ3 game design is that there are no factors that lead one into conflict other than the desire/need to get bigger and the inane diplomatic model. MPP bah!

Throughout the history of the world conflicts between civs/nations occured due to many factors none of which Firaxis managed to put in the game.

Maybe next time. At least some game developers are aware of this, in EU you had religion as an element of gameplay. Medieval Total War will have crusades. Firaxis thinks the sum effect of religion on world history amounts to a need to build temples.

I am not saying you couldn't make a good game out of the concept of having a temple building contest, but gee whiz.

jt, I think this is a bit complicated...

For the HUMAN player, there are many practical reasons to go to a war against an AI - territory, resources, luxuries, techs, money... but these are just "sub-reasons" - everything boils down to winning the game eventually (which is the crucial difference from the real world, which you do not play "games to be won" in). I do not think it would make much sense to add religion to these... since humans would always know that the AI religion is just a set attribute. You could add the element, but it would be just another lame excuse for the humans to stomp upon the poor AIs.

OTOH, while the AI has exactly the same palette of reasons to fight the human, there are still cases in Civ3 when it declares war with no apparent reason - even worse, with no apparent possibility to gain ANYTHING. Although these wars are not explicitly called religious, I tend to understand (some of) them in this way... the AI simply does not like me, for one reason or another... it might be a nice touch if one of my Advisors told me that the actual reason for being attacked was that my nation believes in a different God, but I do not think it would be much more than cosmetics.

Or, how would you like to implement the element of religion?

[Capt Dizle]

Well, it really can't be implemented within the existing framework of the game.

You would need to start from scratch and redefine the gameplay. In Civ you control your population to such an extent that they are just objects.

It might be nice to find a civ-like game where you had to take your pops as you find them, where you find them. Building gameplay around controlling an empire of pops with differing ethnic and religious makeup might be interesting.

[dunk]

Originally posted by DeepO

When you are in a MPP, it doesn't mean that if your partner attacks, you are immediately involved in the war, your ally needs to be attacked for that. In many situations, you're ally wil not be attacked in the first turn, which gives you a bit of time to shuffle trades and further alliances.

True, but it will happen within 3 turns. I hardly ever sign MPPs. I will ROPs and MAs out the ying-yang, but never MPPs.