The current MPP is easily abuse with war declaration and let the enemy attack first. It should be a defensive pact, not offensive.

not accurate, the MPP france and russia signed before WW1 required Germany to actually attack one of the countries for the treaty to take effect.

exactly, it should stay the way it is. I like to abuse it all the time. declare war on a country that has a MPP with some who I also have a MPP I let my enemy attack first so I don't get in more trouble with other nations

Originally posted by Sarevok
not accurate, the MPP france and russia signed before WW1 required Germany to actually attack one of the countries for the treaty to take effect. But was not Germany the one that declared war?

IMO, MPPs should be activated when the offender declares war and attacks. That way, you can't abuse it like you can now (AFAIK), and attacking still has to take place.

i definitely like it just the way it is. Marinecorps said it perfectly. otherwise, you could easily get screwed if you just want to fight a war with that one country but get dragged in to fight 10 of their allies at the same time... the way it is now, some of those allies could be on your side ;)

Sarevok> I think the word attack in that treaty means a sneak attack or war declaration. Not declare war and wait for the other party to hit first.

MarineCorps, Peebo> You are doing what I mean by abuse here. MPP should be defensive pact not offensive. The way it is use now by most player is offensive, not defensive, and it is an abuse in my view. If you need an offensive pact, you should use MA, not MPP. With the current logic, MA just becomes useless once MPP is available.

in the ww1 case i put france and Russia had a MPP if germany ATTACKED one of them. A mobilization or even a decleration of war did not put the treaty into effect. It was because of this that Germany declared war on both of them before conducting operations.

But i really like to abuse MPP's! (i do it all the time!)

It's only an abuse because the AI doesn't use it. The best fix for this is IMO to add that strategy to the AI's arsenal too. Doable because the strategy is relatively straightforward and simple.

Besides, it could create some amusing results like two civs at war with each other but neither side attacking the other because *both* want to take advantage of the existing MPPs. :)

Come to think of it, that would be the Civ-explanation for the Cold War...

Originally posted by Sarevok
in the ww1 case i put france and Russia had a MPP if germany ATTACKED one of them. A mobilization or even a decleration of war did not put the treaty into effect. It was because of this that Germany declared war on both of them before conducting operations.

But i really like to abuse MPP's! (i do it all the time!)

But would France honour the Pact if Russia decides to declare war on Germany instead of Germany declaring war?

And yes, I abuse it as well. I always use whatever tricks that is available to me.

But at the same time, I find it senseless since I would never honour an agreement to defense if the other party goes around warring other people EXPECTING me to protect him!

I prefer this:

If i have a defence alliance with somebody i want an option to withdraw from the alliance if my partner STARTS the war. The AI should use this option too.

As far as who declared war, to answer WillJ, if memory serves me,
Austria attacked Serbia, Russia issued an altimatum (MPP with Serbia), Russia declared war on Austria, Germany declared war of Russia (MPP with Austria), France declared war on Germany (MPP with Russia), Italy betrayed germany with neutrality (MPP with Germany), England declared war on Germany (MPP with France). Japan declared war on Germany (MPP with England) Austria invaded Italy.

Japan had one goal, capturing the German Pacific possessions such as the Caroline Islands. It was very unfortunate for Admiral Graf Spee, but a side affect of this and HMAS Australia drove Admiral Grad Spee to the coast of Argentina to die, giving the Germans a new ship name. (And will all know what happened to this ship in the same month 25 years later of the coast of Argentina)

actually it was Russia threatened wr with austria because of serbia, germany then declared war on Russia, then france and invaded belguim. because of belgium britain jumped in, then japan jumped in as well.

Well, in all the above cases, the MPP is triggered by war declaration, not an attack.

Sorry Qitai, i don't like idea. It should stay the way it is now. Simple you just have to learn to use it and not be abused by other nation.
One more thing, if you are alies with someother nation you fight together never mind how they act (attack or defence themselfs).

those war declerations were followed swiftyl with military action.

It SHOULD be triggered on war declaration. Let me put it like this. If Germany declared war on France who had a MPP with England then it is clear that Germany INTENDS to attack France. Therefore it should be England's obligation to protect France BEFORE Germany's troops attack. That IS what happened in WWI. Germany declared war on France, Britain declared war on Germany and imediatly moblised forces to intercept German forces crossing Belgium.

You lot are only moaning because it would deprive you of an exploit. Have you thought that it may be more fun trying it without a sure-fire way to bring every other Civ in on your side?

im usuallythe aggressor, so no.

But the main stratagy I see people using is signing MPP's with everyone. Declaring war then moving workers to get captured by the enemy - thus forcing all other civs to declare war on the enemy Civ when in fact YOU are the aggresor. This is the equivilant of Germany declaring war on Poland then sending an old granny onto Polish ground. Then when the old German Granny is captured Britain, France, Russia, etc declare war on Poland for attacking the evil granny even though it was GERMANY who was the aggresor...

The aggresor should be punnished with the MPP's - not the defender.