Problems in War/Peace Declarations for MP

[Guest]

When a Civ is being beaten by another there is no reason for that civ to offer up techs, gold, or anything else because there is NO way you can trust that the other civ won't just declare war on the next turn anyways! I would like Peace to be a viable option for both players.

I propse a change for the way the game is handled on the MP level at least.

I suggest that a new option be put into negotiations for a "Binding Peace" agreement. It would make it impossible for the two civs to declare war on each other or even go into the others territory for the duration of this "Binding Peace" agreement. The agreement could last for 20 turns (or maybe just 10). This would give a reason (at least a valid one) for a civ to offer techs, gold and other things for peace. It would ensure that they would have "x" numer of turns before the other civ could decalre war against them.

I wouldn't take out the option for just straight peace (non-binding) but an addition like this would really be nice and not to hard to implement I would suppose.

Another thing that I dont like is the non-ability to decalre war against a known civ; without first attacking him!

In Simultaneous play especially, I would like the ability to be able to declare war against a rival so that when I attempted to attack on of his units I wouldn't then get a pop-up asking if I was sure I wanted to make this move and that it would cause a war with that civ. Duh, I know!

I'm not saying that I don't want it asking me that question (especially if I'm not at war) but I would like the ability to openly declare war against a civ.

Also a question to the general public: Since you may or may not know, I wil have to say this first; There are no unhappiness penalties due to war in MP (at least in my observations) The question is this; How can we implement unhappiness penalties in MP?

I can understand why they were taken out. Human players are unlikely to accept a peace offering, whereas computer players routinely offer peace after a certain amount of turns, regardless of stature of their civ during the game. The AI is programmed to do this for a reason, to make the game enjoyable, otherwise the unhappiness penalties would accrue to no end. I would like to see some penalties for a continued war be assessed against a civ if they are the ones who are not accepting a peace offering. The civ that offers peace would not be penalized for war(unhappiness caused by it) but the civ that denied peace would incur the penalties (but maybe at a lessser rate than in a SP game).
Anyhow, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[Fried-Psitalon]

I think your "binding peace" agreement has a lot of merit to it. In my MP games I simply dismiss the notion of peace altogether - you can't trust the other guy - and so I generally don't even accept envoys unless I know it benefits the other guy as much as it benefits me to have some form of arrangement.

On that note, there IS one roundabout way to declare war currently- but it requires you to actually get into a diplomatic discussion with your target. Once you have the trade window open, select "Active" treaties, and then revoke the peace treaty by renegotiating it and then cancelling the diplomatic window. I refer to this as the "no embassy spying please" defense.

No war weariness in MP? Are you sure? I can't confirm or deny that- and I've never seen anyone use anything other than monarchy besides - but that seems a bit odd if so.

[bigfree1]

If there is unhappiness due to war, I cannot tell the difference. It is nothing like there is in SP! I hope there is a way for Firaxis to implement it in the future.

[CiverDan]

I do not think there is war weariness in. I have played MP games where I was in Republic and at war for many, many turns, never had a war weariness problems. I think this was done, if it was, to prevent someone from simply declaring war on someone far away from you to force them the leave rep/democracy. The problem with this is it makes communism absolutely worthless.

[Wittlich]

I too like the binding peace agreement for "X" number of turns...it would be nice if it could be implimented.

[Acererak]

I'm not so sure I like a 'binding' peace agreement. Where does it say I can't use it as a dirty tactic to attack you again?

However, I do think that there should be penalties for immediately attacking after a peace agreement. This penalty period should probably within 10 - 20 turns, though I think something closer to 10 is more reasonable. 20 turns is a long time. None of these penalties should apply if you are forced to break the peace due to MPP or alliance.

• Upon agreeing to a peace treaty, units from both sides should be forced to leave the enemy's borders. You can't just hang out in their territory (unless a RoP is negotiated.)


• If you reenter enemy territory (with 'military' units) within the penalty period, the other civ has the immediate option to force you to move out or you declare war, thus breaking the peace and receiving the penalties.


• Much more unhappiness in your civ if you break the peace within the penalty period. (Maybe Communism diminishes/prevents this?)


• 'Sanctions' from the other civs against you for being 'deceptive', such as breaking all current trade agreements and unable to trade for 20 turns or until you declare peace again. Possibly include breaking alliances as well.


• Really damages your reputation. AI civs should be very reluctant to trade strategic resources with you until your reputation improves. Luxuries probably should be affected less.

For human players, it's hard to implement certain penalties such as sanctions. However, if a human player refuses to break their current trades, other AI civs will enact sanctions on you too. (e.g. Jay and Kay have a trade agreement when Jay attacks Dee within the penalty period. If Kay does not break the current trade agreement (or makes a new trade agreement within the penalty period), other civs will also enact santions on Kay).

That's all I can think of right now. I'm sure these could be tweaked. What do you think?

[bigfree1]

Originally posted by Acererak
I'm not so sure I like a 'binding' peace agreement. Where does it say I can't use it as a dirty tactic to attack you again?

For those that love the 'dirty' tactics, in my example, could still just only agree to a regular peace and not to the binding peace. This leaves the option for both civs to immediately launch attacks if they so choose. As for dirty tactics no one says you have to agree to any sort of peace whatsoever!