I know there is Peace Treaty between AIs: if they just make peace all by themselves I cannot see the option of bribing them into war in the diplo screen for a while. But in my recent game I gave Alex several techs to get him make peace with elizabeth, but right in the next turn Alex declared war on poor elizabeth again and vassalized her in a minute!:mad: It really pissed me off! (ps, AP was not built yet.)
Why? Is it that they just sign a 'cease fire', not the 10-turn-peace-treaty if it is you that buy the peace for them? If it is true, I don't think it should be so: one AI gets expensive techs from you only to make peace with another AI in your turn, and redeclares once they get to move!

hmmz, you're right. in my current game, i bribed louis to sign peace with justinian about 20 turns ago. so i had a handy way to test what you observed ...i went back to the auto-save of the turn afterward my bribe, to see whether it was a peace treaty or a cease-fire.

the Event Log says "Louis has made peace with Justinian". but the diplomatic advisor just shows them as not at war, it does not show them with any active peace treaty. and Louis is wililng to go back to war with Justinian for 895g. J and Brennus were still at war, so i test-bribed B to make peace with J, same thing happened (altho his price for going back to war is greedier).

that seems buggy to me. what i'm paying for on the trade screen is "Make Peace With", not "stop fighting with until you decide you want to again, which might be tomorrow". i think it's reasonable to expect them to keep up their end of the deal for 10 turns. i'd never noticed that before.

i'm playing BtS 3.13. i'm guessing that you are too, because you mentioned the AP?

Yes, I play in Bts with the latest patch. I think it should be fixed.

i have warlords 1.61 still on my pc, so i checked it. worked the same way there. weird.

Yes I've noticed the same thing. It's kind of funny, isn't it? It's like playing against a conniving human

Well I don't know if it's because of the new patch, but I've had weirder things.

If you demand something from an AI, doesn't that put you at a position where you can't declare war for at least another 10 turns? This seems to be a hit & miss on me?

One thing that surprised me recently, watching 1 AI bribe 2 or 3 others to go to war against a victim.

The same turn I am notified of this, I can actually bribe those same AI's to make peace with the victim, leaving the aggressor empty handed. I thought before there was some 10 turn wait system inplace?

I don't know if these are bugs or just gameplay changes in the new patch. I found a lot of new things going on that caught me by surprise. Not least of which is all spies suddenly being forced out of territories the instant you declare war. What!!??

How does that work, your spies aren't really spies because the AI knows who they really are? Then why didn't they just kill them instead of pushing them out their borders, where they will just run in again?

Rediculous!

The same turn I am notified of this, I can actually bribe those same AI's to make peace with the victim, leaving the aggressor empty handed. I thought before there was some 10 turn wait system inplace?

After a War started they refuse to talk. But having a mediatior as good as you are :D

Anyway i strongly suspect this "Refuse to Talk" BS only affects the Human player - as many other things in the diplo system [pissed]

Not least of which is all spies suddenly being forced out of territories the instant you declare war. What!!??

I think it only happens, if they got there while having Open Boarders. Canceling open Boarders expells all units. Not that it's less ridiculous because of this...

I don't know if these are bugs or just gameplay changes in the new patch. I found a lot of new things going on that caught me by surprise. Not least of which is all spies suddenly being forced out of territories the instant you declare war. What!!??

How does that work, your spies aren't really spies because the AI knows who they really are? Then why didn't they just kill them instead of pushing them out their borders, where they will just run in again?

Rediculous!

That's a bug from the 'pure' 3.13. I'm positive that Bhruic's patch solved this problem.

Back to the topic, I agree that the condition 'Make Peace' should mean Peace Treaty. Cease Fires are meaningless. In RL, cease fires mean that the belligerents are still technically at war! The Koreas are a good example.

Well my partial solution is to cause city revolts FIRST, then declare war second. Of course, this only helps if you are able to get to and attack a city the same turn you declare war.

I remember a time when there were over 800 beta testers for Firaxis during the Civ III days. Then again, that was when another company was doing their expansion pack for them.

I'm wondering about the size of Firaxis' beta time currently.

Actually, I'm also wondering where the OFFICIAL list of changes in the last patch are posted? I didn't get any message when I did the auto-install that I remember.

At least they fixed the (No you can't nuke this city because there is a neutral spy in it).

I agree this is a bug and should be fixed.
Also I would like the player to be able to ask for techs or money when the AI ask to join a war or even allow the AI to bribe the player in starting a war.
I would make diplomacy a lot more fluid and we could play strategy like a mercenary empire that gets rich and advanced by selling its military might to the best offer.

i was pondering this last night, and the only justification i could think of for a cease fire and not a peace treaty is that you're negotiating only with one side, but the other party would also be locked into a peace treaty too, with no benefit to them. if a ceasefire rather than a treaty is intended for that reason, then i definitely think the wording should be changed. Peace means 10 years of Peace Treaty everywhere else in the game with only one exception i can think of. (that exception is when you first become a vassal. if you're at war, and your new master's relationship with the guy you're fighting forces you to peace with the guy who's trying to clobber you, i think you don't get a 10-year peace treaty, you just get peace. but that makes perfect sense, because he can't declare war on you any more and you can't declare war on him, 10 years later or not. all deals have to go thru master now. oops, all "you"s here ought to be "an AI" since you as a human can't be a vassal.)

maybe there's a way to work around that? this is just brainstorming and i'm sure it's full of holes! my first thoughts: often one side will have "make peace with X" redlined as "we'd love to, but you'll have to talk to them". which i think is because X is winning (for now at least) the war and doesn't want to stop yet for anything the loser is willing to give up? so for a player-negotiated Peace Treaty, maybe make the rule be that for a Peace Treaty, the player has to make the deal with the Winning party in the war. maybe keep the ability to deal with both parties, making it super clear which deal buys you what, and Winner will charge you much more and what you buy is 10 turns Peace Treaty. Loser probably charges you less, but what you buy is a mere Ceasefire. maybe Winner has a ceasefire only option on the table too, clearly marked. i don't want to make it a lot more complicated than it is now, but i also don't want the player to be stuck if the Winner is mad at you and refusing to talk because you cancelled trades or whatever :lol:.

If you demand something from an AI, doesn't that put you at a position where you can't declare war for at least another 10 turns? This seems to be a hit & miss on me?

yes. if A demands helps/requests tribute from B and B says yes, then A and B are in an automatic peace treaty for 10 turns. but only if B says yes, maybe that was the hit & miss part? it doesn't even have to be a demand, even at friendly it can happen, it's the "asking for something while offering nothing in return" stuff.

if i know someone at pleased is planning to pick on me, i've been known to ask "can you spare this for a friend?" (his world map, for example) to get that 10 years as time to build up my forces. :mischief:

Anyway i strongly suspect this "Refuse to Talk" BS only affects the Human player - as many other things in the diplo system [pissed]

well, it's like all the other redlines, but this one's a bit better actually, since it's removable. hurt them bad enough and they'll start talking. it's not a hard-coded 10-turn wait. it can change from red to white during a turn, depending on what happens, just like Capitulation can. sometimes as soon as he's willing to talk he's crying uncle and willing to capitulate. that makes me feel all tough and stuff. :lol:

Also I would like the player to be able to ask for techs or money when the AI ask to join a war or even allow the AI to bribe the player in starting a war.
I would make diplomacy a lot more fluid and we could play strategy like a mercenary empire that gets rich and advanced by selling its military might to the best offer.

i think the AI isn't allowed to bribe the human into war on purpose exactly so that we can't get rich and advanced like that. also so that you can't decide you want to fight a war against, say, Monty for your own reasons and then go around to see if anybody happens to dislike him and wants to contribute a few gold or techs to your cause. the AI wouldn't know you were going to do it anyway, so they'd think they were "buying" something valuable, but essentially you'd be getting freebies.

it doesn't even have to be a demand, even at friendly it can happen, it's the "asking for something while offering nothing in return" stuff.


So the lesson here is, if you want to backstab someone in less than 10 turns, but want a free item from him NOW, don't ask for the gift, instead give him 1 goldpiece for it...

I think Firaxis failed a bit here on the GUI system, and should have had more attention to detail for some sort of TREATY window. It seemed much more straight forward in Civ III.

P.S. Maybe I am missing the obvious somewhere too, but I have a hard time trying to see how many turns are left for peace-treaties between two civs who just went to war expires.

P.S. Maybe I am missing the obvious somewhere too, but I have a hard time trying to see how many turns are left for peace-treaties between two civs who just went to war expires.

there may be an easier way, but i don't know it. i just scroll back in the event log to see what year they stopped bickering, then count turns elapsed by how many different years are mentioned in the log since then.

Actually, I'm also wondering where the OFFICIAL list of changes in the last patch are posted? I didn't get any message when I did the auto-install that I remember.


um... you mean here?

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=245912


your point about the spies being expelled from the land when war is declared would make sense in real-world terms if they KNEW they were spies, because this kind of thing happens all the time. countries send foreign spies packing, and execute their own traitors. of course, how would the AIs know they are spies in the first place, so I agree that feature seems buggy