Tweet
I've read several posts in this forum advocating use of the Mutual Protection Pact in foreign policy as a way to protect your civilization from attack. I'm personally not inclined to agree.
The MPP gets activated when another power attacks your units on your territory, as I understand it. Even if I'm wrong about the latter condition, the former is definitely true. MPP's don't require your ally to enter the fray unless you are attacked physically. Just because somebody declares war on you doesn't mean that your ally will help. This can lead to some unexpected results.
A real example:
I was playing Russians on an archipelago map. I partially colonized a rather large unclaimed island some 50 years previous, but then got bogged down in some domestic concerns. By the time my attention returned to the island, the English and French had also built small cities. I have an MPP with the French. The English decide to explore the island (although they have my territory map) with a complement of 3 Knights, marching them within striking distance of one of my weaker cities. I demand they leave, and the Brits declare war. The French sit on their assess because the Brits do not physically attack. The next turn, the Brits negotiate an alliance against me with the French, and the French declare war on me.
The lesson from this experience is that the MPP does not really offer any assurance that you'll receive assistance from the other country, and indeed does not even guarantee that they won't attack you. Furthermore, MPPs can be quite costly, unless the other signee is a country too weak to be of any assistance during a war.
I tend to think the alliance tool is much more useful in the case of an attack. It requires more direct effort from you, but it ensures that the other signee will declare war on your enemy. As an added bonus, I think it makes your enemy have a worse attitude towards your ally, thus decreasing the likelihood of friendly diplomacy between those two countries. As an added bonus, it does not have the critical flaw of the MPP.
Remember that the MPP is *mutual*, which means that it works both ways. If you've signed an MPP with another civilization (say, France) and they get physically attacked (by England), then you *must* go to war with England, no matter what your foreign policy objectives. You don't have the choice whether or not to honor your MPP. This means that you can get drawn into a war that's quite damaging to your civ (consider the effects of war weariness) and your objectives. It's the classic WWI effect.
The MPP's only advantage, then, derives from the improvement of the other signee's attitude towards you. However, you can usually get just as much mileage out of an ROP agreement, without the attendant cost of getting embroiled in foreign wars.
That's my take on the MPP. I'm curious to see what the rest of you think.
The MPP gets activated when another power attacks your units on your territory, as I understand it. Even if I'm wrong about the latter condition, the former is definitely true. MPP's don't require your ally to enter the fray unless you are attacked physically. Just because somebody declares war on you doesn't mean that your ally will help. This can lead to some unexpected results.
A real example:
I was playing Russians on an archipelago map. I partially colonized a rather large unclaimed island some 50 years previous, but then got bogged down in some domestic concerns. By the time my attention returned to the island, the English and French had also built small cities. I have an MPP with the French. The English decide to explore the island (although they have my territory map) with a complement of 3 Knights, marching them within striking distance of one of my weaker cities. I demand they leave, and the Brits declare war. The French sit on their assess because the Brits do not physically attack. The next turn, the Brits negotiate an alliance against me with the French, and the French declare war on me.
The lesson from this experience is that the MPP does not really offer any assurance that you'll receive assistance from the other country, and indeed does not even guarantee that they won't attack you. Furthermore, MPPs can be quite costly, unless the other signee is a country too weak to be of any assistance during a war.
I tend to think the alliance tool is much more useful in the case of an attack. It requires more direct effort from you, but it ensures that the other signee will declare war on your enemy. As an added bonus, I think it makes your enemy have a worse attitude towards your ally, thus decreasing the likelihood of friendly diplomacy between those two countries. As an added bonus, it does not have the critical flaw of the MPP.
Remember that the MPP is *mutual*, which means that it works both ways. If you've signed an MPP with another civilization (say, France) and they get physically attacked (by England), then you *must* go to war with England, no matter what your foreign policy objectives. You don't have the choice whether or not to honor your MPP. This means that you can get drawn into a war that's quite damaging to your civ (consider the effects of war weariness) and your objectives. It's the classic WWI effect.
The MPP's only advantage, then, derives from the improvement of the other signee's attitude towards you. However, you can usually get just as much mileage out of an ROP agreement, without the attendant cost of getting embroiled in foreign wars.
That's my take on the MPP. I'm curious to see what the rest of you think.
Comment