I always set PA's on. I like them. I like having a remote possibillity to win a game even if you're going nowhere on your own and the sudden impact of an AI partnering up with another and thus forming a very strong adversary.

I've found that forming a PA with the AI is a very difficult task in BTS. Many times diplomacy and a defensice pact didn't work and PA was redlined throughout the game.

But which leader is a good ally? Some won't fight, some will, some are dragging you behind in tech and some not. Saladin is definitely NOT good in a PA.

In my last game I got my first BTS PA with Saladin. Saladin was behind on tech so I bribed him in becoming my ally. He still had quite a lot of territory so it seemed a good match. Myself, I was playing as the Ethiopians and I had about the same size of land as Saladin but more and more advanced troops.

Before I got the PA, Hammurabi was agead of me in first place. Hammurabi had vasalized Joao and was on good terms with Hatsheput. I was cornered in between Hammurabi (with whom I originally was on good terms) and Joao with whom it was almost always war before he became Ham's vassal.

By the time I got gunpowder it was time to do something about the two and I razed and captured some of Ham's cities even though he already had riflemen running around. Razing a few of his cities didn't do our relation any good so after he got infantry he declared war on me himself after a few years of peace. I only survived that war because I had tons of muskets but it was hurting my economy and tech race so I decided to start bribing Saladin. He was even more behind in tech than me but he wasn't in for a war on Hammurabi but finally after peace with Hammurabi and a defensive pact of like ages, he agreed to a PA.

By then Hammurabi built his first spaceship part while I built my first infantry. Teching was a bit faster now with Saladin but I had no oil anywhere and Saladin had just 1 of it. Then it was cav's, canons and (from muskets heavily promoted) infantry against tanks and later on mech's. I conquered 3 of his most important cities amongst them his capital and 3 shrines. With odds as low as 0.5% my cav's kept on retreating but hurting his mech's nonetheless finishing it off with my infantry. After I took those cities, it was a done deal of course. This war lasted from the 1980's to 2045 without a single year of peace. With Saladin I was in first place so I thought I'd win a time victory but I made it with a domination victory just in time. My culture slider was on 50% to 60% during this endless war btw.

Not once in all 60+ years of war, I've seen the log showing something like "Saladin conquered city Blah" or even that he lost a city. He just wouldn't fight the bugger. He had at least two border cities with Hammurabi but further than border skirmishes it never came. In fact, his army was far from being an army. I've seen a couple of his tanks passing by but that was it. Around 2000 I decided to request his only source of oil just because he wasn't doing anything substantial with it.

I've had a lot of PA's in Vanilla and Warlords, even with Montezuma (!). Now in fact Montezuma is great as an ally. You can always count on a massive amount of troops pillaging, razing and conquering the enemy. Julius is also great and there are a few others too, but Saladin... never again! I've had vassals doing more than him! Or is it BTS that has changed the AI's behaviour in a PA ? Maybe it's because the enemy has more advanced troops and your ally just won't attack if that's the case?

Long story :goodjob:

I tend to have a great reputation with the top AIs and always make a PA with the one below me (I'm always top if I make it to this part of the game).

Cyrus tend to be a good ally.

I usually am too but in this game I may have made a couple of bad choices along the way.

Cyrus is indeed a good ally (at least he was in WL, I haven't even seen him in BtS yet), but I tend to make a PA with the one in third place, not second. Don't know why exactly, but most of the time the one in second place hates my guts ^^

Just as long I don't get a crappy ally I'll take almost anyone ^^

I just played a game where Boudica and I were allies, she was 2nd place, i was first and we were both on different continents. (about 4 continents) She was an amazing ally in war, with plenty of ships and troops. She took a lot of land on her continent against the player who was threatening to win a culture victory and then went top of the board with the cities she won from this. She also helped at sea while i took another enemy out.

In the end i won a space race victory from second place.

I think that its important to pick an ally who is a bit of a warmonger if you want them to help you fight, and a good teching ally if you want them to help you tech. It all depends.

Another thing which is quite usefull when you are fighting which not everyone knows about is that you can ask the ally to attack certain cities, go through the options with them when you are talking to them and you can aim them towards certain cities. If you had chosen an enemy city near your allies border he may have been more likely to attack but the reality is probably that he knew he would lose so didnt bother attacking.

In another game i once had Alexander as an ally and asked him to attack a superior enemy which he did with his hordes of horse and captured 2 or 3 cities. His losses were so heavy though that it allowed me to attack him in turn once that initial war was over and walk over him too ;)

I should have felt guilty backstabbing but since it was Alex who i hate it felt good :D Just glad the AI dont have a memory like i have!

Another thing which is quite usefull when you are fighting which not everyone knows about is that you can ask the ally to attack certain cities, go through the options with them when you are talking to them and you can aim them towards certain cities. If you had chosen an enemy city near your allies border he may have been more likely to attack but the reality is probably that he knew he would lose so didnt bother attacking.

I did multiple times but to no avail. "We'll do our best" he said, but nothing really happened..

I find agressive civs to be better PA partners than tech-whores or wonder builders.

Alex, Shaka, Monty, and Napoleon are the kinda leaders I find best to have as PA's. If the leader has a real attitude problem, he might be harder to befriend in the first place, but the payoffs are worth it in the end.

Er...I don't think it's actually possible to get a PA with Alex. Look in the XML. There are one or two other leaders for whom this is also true. You could start a game with him as an ally, that's fine, but if you don't start off as allies, you'll never be able to get him to agree to a PA; it will always be "we just don't like you enough".

I actually find Hatty quite a good ally - and she's easy to please so you CAN ally her in the first place - else, it'll be Cyrus or Gandhi or someone like that - I don't like mating warmongers :p

@magicalsushi:

You're right on this. Alex will never sign a PA. I have so far made no bad experience with PA partners. They all made good efforts. I actually had a PA with Saladin in my last game. It's true, he is slow and not very effective with his warfare. But as we had a huge techlead he grinded Shaka to dust (not that difficult with Tanks and Bombers vs. Infantry and Cannons, but still...). PAs need a lot of planning though, even going so far to adopt civics you normally wouldn't...

Er...I don't think it's actually possible to get a PA with Alex.

Fair enough.

But what I said still stands..... I've found agressive warmongers to be much better partners than passive tech traders....... if you can get them to agree to it.;)

As far as I remember I can't recall ever having had a PA with Alexander so you're probably right.

@Imhotep : I was browsing my 'win'-screenshots in Warlords and I came upon 1 other Saladin PA, except it wasn't really a screenshot of a win but of a bug :D
I just don't seem to hook up with Saladin very well I think :)

Does winning by a PA feel like really winning? I have never tried; I thought it wouldn't feel like really winning. But probably it is better than the feeling of really losing...

Anyone tried breaking the ice and getting close enought to Toku to PA him :D

Does winning by a PA feel like really winning? I have never tried; I thought it wouldn't feel like really winning. But probably it is better than the feeling of really losing...

It's not just a question of not wanting to lose. If you set PA's on then the AI can form PA's amongst themselves too. If you suspect this will happen you'd better start a PA yourself.

PA with Toku? Nope haven't succeeded in having a PA with Toku. I've made it to defensive pacts with him and a long time friendly attitude but PA? I don't even think it's possible..

Yeah, the other AIs definitely make PA's with each other (or at least they did with un-expansion packed Civ IV). One time in a game with 7 civs, there were 3 permanent alliances. Luckily I won a spaceship victory, because after this win, I tried a super-war just for kicks and got royally pwned. I think this was on Noble as well (if not Warlord; it was a long time ago)

Er...I don't think it's actually possible to get a PA with Alex. Look in the XML. There are one or two other leaders for whom this is also true. You could start a game with him as an ally, that's fine, but if you don't start off as allies, you'll never be able to get him to agree to a PA; it will always be "we just don't like you enough".

Wow, I didn't know that! Magicalsushi, besides Alex, what other civs can you NEVER form an PA with? Thanks in advance! :)

mansa musa, or whoever leads in tech (usually mansa if he's playing) and/or power

the vassal system has effectively replaced teams for all intents and purposes, but teams still rock, especially when your team has vassals as well!

EDIT: on second thought, i'm not sure what happens when a team becomes a vassal/master... does anyone know?

Am I missing something? In all my games I've never had permanent aliance as an option in diplomacy. Do you have to have PA set to on AND have a set alliance for the whole game straight out the gate?

Am I missing something? In all my games I've never had permanent aliance as an option in diplomacy. Do you have to have PA set to on AND have a set alliance for the whole game straight out the gate?

No, you just need PA set to on, and you need to have researched either Communism or Fascism. I'm not sure whether both parties need to have researched one of those techs.

If those conditions are met, you should at least see the option on the diplomacy screen of non-vassals. The other restrictions are:

* No-one can get a PA with the civ who currently has the highest power rating.
* I doubt you can get a PA with a civ who has been vassalised.
* I don't think think PAs are available if you're already in a team of two or more.
* To get a PA with someone, you need to have either had a defensive pact with them for 40 continuous turns, or shared a war with them for 40 continuous turns (I think this is on normal speed). Slightly ridiculously, I gather it has to be a defensive pact OR shared war, not a cominbation of both.
* Most leaders will only agree to a PA at friendly relations. A few will never sign one under any conditions (Alex is one, I think Napoleon is another; there may be more but there are not many).
* I'm not sure whether vassal states affect eligibility for a PA. My guess is no, apart from any influence they may have on the power rating.