[DESIGN] Duration of Diplomatic Agreements

[Gilgamensch]

Originally posted by The Big Mc


No you take over the other nations lands army’s and cities this being the next step up from an alliance your people being as one .

The other bloke gets to retire the only problem is that the other civ most really trust you to do this.

of course the is the opposite version of this when the ai can’t win "surrender "

Actually would be nice to have this option as a 'hostile' takeover from the AI. If the people would trust the oponent leader more than their own, he'll be kicked out. Doesn't matter if it is AI or human, could be another kind of possible victory

[Flinx]

I guess I meant a diplomatic version of sole-survivor; unite the world through diplomacy versus war/conquest.

[Flinx]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
CtP2 being a Grand Strategy Game many things are abstracted in the game. A peace treaty, as far as I am concerned, represents formal and friendly relationships between two countries. IMO, the peace treaty represents the treaties and agreements as a whole that are organizing the peaceful relationships between two nations.

In this sense then yes, peace treaty should have no time limit; but you should be able to cancel the peace treaty (all treaties actually) without declaring war.

How do the trade pact, research pact etc. fit into this interpretation though for these are specific examples of “the treaties and agreements as a whole that are organizing the peaceful relationships between two nations.”

[Gilgamensch]

Originally posted by Flinx
I guess I meant a diplomatic version of sole-survivor; unite the world through diplomacy versus war/conquest.

I was thinking of a similar one, but for this we would need the rating of the people (like in SIM City) and that would be to much to ask for (at least for the moment).

So if like only 20% would agree with you, but they vote like 51% for the enemy leader, he could take over

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Flinx
In this sense then yes, peace treaty should have no time limit; but you should be able to cancel the peace treaty (all treaties actually) without declaring war.

I agree with you, one should have the possibility to cancel an agreement like you can cancel a trade road (though it should cost you some reputation).

How do the trade pact, research pact etc. fit into this interpretation though for these are specific examples of “the treaties and agreements as a whole that are organizing the peaceful relationships between two nations.”

They are specific treaties organizing a deeper cooperation on specific matters.

[Ekmek]

...and canceling a peace treaty shouldn't hurt reputation. Just because you want to be neutral.

[Tamerlin]

Being neutral is a thing, wanting to become neutral when you already have a formal treaty is another matter. Imagine a member of the EU wanting to become neutral again and to get out of the union.

[Flinx]

Originally posted by E
...and canceling a peace treaty shouldn't hurt reputation. Just because you want to be neutral.

Actively cancelling any agreement should hurt reputation to some degree as it represents a souring of relations.

[tlatoani]

Originally posted by Flinx
Actively cancelling any agreement should hurt reputation to some degree as it represents a souring of relations.

I think cancelling a treaty should hurt reputation overall but mostly with the country you cancelled the treaty. Also, cancelling a research or trade pact should not have the same effect as cancelling a peace treaty.

Remaining neutral is a step closer to war than having a peace treaty, hence cancelling a peace treaty should have an effect on that nation’s reputation. On the same logic, withdrawing from a military treaty should have an effect, but less so that cancelling a peace treaty. Europe is not a military treaty, it’s an alliance formed from a series of treaties covering the military, economics, research, etc. If you break that, they’ll be hell to pay.

[Gilgamensch]

Cancelling a treaty shall give distrust by the nationed you cancelled with. The amount that is a different question.

You might just want to cancel a treaty as you don't agree with the expansion of this nation anymore or similar, so penulty We might want to have some options when cancelling it. But if you gave a wrong statement (proven with your actions) you will get a reputation hit and maybe AI-nations will ally against you.

For example: You decided to cancel a no-pirate-treaty and 4 rounds later you pirate a trade-route, so the AI will distrust you and might try to ally with somebody to fight you.

Something like this.

[The Big Mc]

but Gilgamensch you may wish to pirate trade routes because they are coming throw your territory without paying some kind of tribute.

even after a non piracy agreement the person could send five times the caravans throw.

[Gilgamensch]

As I said, just an example. Maybe not the best one...........

OK, let's say you had a non-aggression pact, you cancel it and 4 turns later you attack a unit/city of this nation.

[The Big Mc]

THE point is we all have a reason for braking treaties so of which don’t need to bigger regard loss.

[Gilgamensch]

The reason to have a treaty is that you can be sure of something (at least to a certain degree).

If somebody breaks (worse) or just cancels a treaty, the partner shall get at least suspicious. If the person breaking it, afterwards commits exactly what the treaty was about, you shall have even more distrust.

Otherwise: What shall be the reason of a treaty?

[The Big Mc]

If I have a peace treaty with civ A then civ A brings an army throw my civ and keeps bring armies throw my territory of one or two tiles so there not in my lands for long. I should be allowed to declare war without too much of a reputation hit.