Defensive Pact and DoW's

Y

Yackeroeni

Chieftain
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
19
I just played a game in which I made a few defensive pacts (probably too many) and it got me into trouble.

I was friends with pretty much everyone, but as it turns out, they weren't all friends among each other. At one point, one of my friends declared war on another one of my friends whom I had a defensive pact with. So naturally I automatically declared war on my friend.

The problem is though, that I got a massive negative diplomatic bonus with all the civs in the game saying I declared war on someone I had previously made a declaration of friendship with.
It seems to me that this should not be so. If I have a defensive pact with someone, anyone can see that I have that defensive pact, so the attacking civilization knows I have no choice but to declare war. In my opinion, the game should consider this as if the attacker declared war on the defender AND on all its defensive pact civs.

Maybe this is just my opinion, but it felt really unfair in the game, so much so that I chose not to make any more defensive pacts afterwards.

Is this just me? What do you guys think about this?
 
I don't know. I didn't like it either when it happened to me way back on vanilla. I haven't made many defensive pacts since then(at least on singleplayer), but I try to be careful when I do make them so to make sure none of my friends declares war on another one.
 
1) Don't sign DP unless you really mean it. A DP means commitment (at least a diplomatic commitment) so if you are not ready to for that commitment, don't sign one. There are other threads about this on this (and other) forum, where this is explained.

2) Don't sign DoF unless you really mean it, if you think that this AI can/must be dealt with in a near future or another better "friend" will deal with that AI, don't sign a DoF.

If you try to befriend the entire world, you probably end up being the one without a chair when the music stops. There are a lot of conflicts in the world so it is usually better to pick a side and try to use that side to your advantage.
 
I wonder if Firaxis is even thinking about fixing this or if they are just going to ignore it for two years like they did with MP?
 
Defensive pacts are broken anyway. What do they do? Force one player to join a war for their "ally".

If said "ally" is actually worth protecting or helping, they would do so anyway, even without such a pact. And if said "ally" is not worth protecting or helping, they could just ignore the war altogether and not care at all.

The AI doesn't really understand this, though. Or anything else in regards to defensive pacts.
 
Well wouldn't it be nice if the AI would take defensive pacts into consideration before declaring war.
If they can make the AI smart enough to check for possible loss of trade routes when DoWing, how can they be so reckless when it comes to defensive pacts?

For the moment thought, thanks to DemonMaster for the tips on dealing with the current defensive pacts.
 
Yackeroeni said:
I just played a game in which I made a few defensive pacts (probably too many) and it got me into trouble.

I was friends with pretty much everyone, but as it turns out, they weren't all friends among each other. At one point, one of my friends declared war on another one of my friends whom I had a defensive pact with. So naturally I automatically declared war on my friend.

The problem is though, that I got a massive negative diplomatic bonus with all the civs in the game saying I declared war on someone I had previously made a declaration of friendship with.
It seems to me that this should not be so. If I have a defensive pact with someone, anyone can see that I have that defensive pact, so the attacking civilization knows I have no choice but to declare war. In my opinion, the game should consider this as if the attacker declared war on the defender AND on all its defensive pact civs.

Maybe this is just my opinion, but it felt really unfair in the game, so much so that I chose not to make any more defensive pacts afterwards.

Is this just me? What do you guys think about this?
Click to expand...



The trick is to learn your diplomatic status and choose carefully who you have a defensive pact with. Find out if that particular Civ is always at war with someone and how powerful that someone is.

Don`t have defensive pacts with just anyone who asks as the AI is clever enough to drag you into a war you may not want. Just as in real life, Leaders ask for pacts that mostly suit them, not you, you need to play as smartly. I learned this a while ago.
 
In my current game I'm sorta in a corner with my good friend Gandhi. Neither of us are that powerful in relation to the big civs, so we stay friends and keep a defensive pact to protect our little corner of the continent. Alot of his land surrounds mine, so that way if someone declares war on me they have to come through him first, and I can help protect his land as well.
 
VainoValkea said:
Defensive pacts are broken anyway. What do they do? Force one player to join a war for their "ally".

If said "ally" is actually worth protecting or helping, they would do so anyway, even without such a pact. And if said "ally" is not worth protecting or helping, they could just ignore the war altogether and not care at all.

The AI doesn't really understand this, though. Or anything else in regards to defensive pacts.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I understand your criticism. The whole point of defensive pacts is to force your ally to declare war on an aggressor even if they don't think you are "worth protecting". It is basically a gamble - when you sign a defensive pact, you are betting that another civ will declare war on YOU, thereby forcing your ally to come to your aid.
 
Rohili said:
The whole point of defensive pacts is to force your ally to declare war on an aggressor even if they don't think you are "worth protecting". It is basically a gamble - when you sign a defensive pact, you are betting that another civ will declare war on YOU, thereby forcing your ally to come to your aid.
Click to expand...

I like to play a relatively peaceful, diplomatic game (without losing my musical chair!), so for me, defensive pacts are not used only to force my friend into declaring war. I accept them - judiciously - in the spirit of diplomatic camaraderie. Now, this is more of an RP style of play that I enjoy and less one of mechanics, so call me naive. But I do wish DPs had greater significance than using a friend for inevitable war. I wish it were one step on a ladder to an actual true "Alliance." But now I'm just being crazy. ;)
 
Securion said:
I wonder if Firaxis is even thinking about fixing this or if they are just going to ignore it for two years like they did with MP?
Click to expand...

I honestly wouldn't consider it broken. It's a question of commitment, and there's potential consquences to the commitment. That's how World War 1 started, even. Or the 7 years war.
 
Rohili said:
I'm not sure I understand your criticism. The whole point of defensive pacts is to force your ally to declare war on an aggressor even if they don't think you are "worth protecting". It is basically a gamble - when you sign a defensive pact, you are betting that another civ will declare war on YOU, thereby forcing your ally to come to your aid.
Click to expand...

And you misunderstood my point completely. As well as how defensive pacts work, it seems.

I bolded two parts of your text. Yes, a defensive pact forces your ally to declare war against a common aggressor. No, a defensive pact does not force your ally to come to your aid. The defensive pact mandates only the gesture of declaration of war, which itself means little - a passive "war" without any hostilities fulfills the pact just fine, and is the sensible way to react when dragged into a war one would want no part of. And if you did want a part of that war, why bother signing a pact? It's not like you couldn't join the bloodshed anyway.

So basically, the pact is worthless either way as a concept. Unlike you say, it doesn't do anything like "forcing your ally to come to your aid". If said ally had actual interest in your survival, they would come even without a pact to tell them so - and if they have no interest in the war, they can just idle around without taking any part in the conflict and declare peace again at the first opportunity. Forced war works very poorly, because it really forces nothing. Now do you understand my point?
 
VainoValkea said:
And you misunderstood my point completely. As well as how defensive pacts work, it seems.

I bolded two parts of your text. Yes, a defensive pact forces your ally to declare war against a common aggressor. No, a defensive pact does not force your ally to come to your aid. The defensive pact mandates only the gesture of declaration of war, which itself means little - a passive "war" without any hostilities fulfills the pact just fine, and is the sensible way to react when dragged into a war one would want no part of. And if you did want a part of that war, why bother signing a pact? It's not like you couldn't join the bloodshed anyway.

So basically, the pact is worthless either way as a concept. Unlike you say, it doesn't do anything like "forcing your ally to come to your aid". If said ally had actual interest in your survival, they would come even without a pact to tell them so - and if they have no interest in the war, they can just idle around without taking any part in the conflict and declare peace again at the first opportunity. Forced war works very poorly, because it really forces nothing. Now do you understand my point?
Click to expand...
Yes, I get your point now; I thought you meant something else earlier. I accept that the human can have a "passive war" without any hostilities, but the AI doesn't really work that way. If your ally shares borders with the enemy, the enemy will be bound to divert some troops to attack your ally, and your ally will also disturb your enemy by random pillaging and opportunistic skirmishes. If your ally has many city-states under its control, those city-states will also help distract and annoy your enemy.

You also get a diplomatic benefit from forcing your ally to declare war on your enemy, because now your ally and your enemy will get a diplomatic hit and will not trade with each other for many turns.

So, you don't really need your ally to launch an all-out assault on your enemy in order to get sizeable benefits from the defensive pact.
 
Rohili said:
Yes, I get your point now; I thought you meant something else earlier. I accept that the human can have a "passive war" without any hostilities, but the AI doesn't really work that way.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what I meant when I said "The AI doesn't really understand this, though. Or anything else in regards to defensive pacts." I would expect them to actively participate in a war declared through a pact, but the rest of their reasoning concerning these pacts (who is the active aggressor and who is just defending, who should these pacts be made with etc) are too poor to make it worthwhile.
 
The AI is so dumb. It doesn't understand that I want all the benefits of diplomacy with none of the liabilities. This game is BROKEN.
 
Nice strawman, Polisurgist.

(take care to read my message the next time so you don't embarrass yourself by poking fun at the wrong place) (edit: wrong target, sorry)
 
Playing as Korea has taught me to suit my own needs and try to stay out of the global politics stage. You want a military big enough to deter attackers, but you also don't want it too big, as you will be seen as a rival. If that balance can be achieved, then just tend to your own mittens and do not sign any pacts unless you're getting a more than fair share.
It will save you a great deal of trouble in the later game where the AI decides it can just denounce people for the smallest provocation.
 
I've as autocracy brasil I used a defensive pack and goading another AI into attacking me to get boost my culture spread to several civs at once. While getting the diplomatic benefit of being at war with a common foe.

I don't like much of the diplomacy system as it's used though because the backstab rules are often stupid and weird, but I think defensive pacts due to having a major benefit should have some diplomacy risks that leave you caught in the middle of a mess.

They are something you have to be very careful with and always aware of the world situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

mastrude
[BNW] A puzzle about allies
Replies
0
Views
161
mastrude
mastrude
M
defense treaty
Replies
3
Views
225
martindo
M
M
Loss of infrastructure when city is conquered
Replies
9
Views
543
martindo
M
ThermobaricPunch
Multiplayer desyncs (loading screen between turns) and weird bugs
Replies
1
Views
799
coolhandluke11
C
R
Few questions about vox populi and more
Replies
1
Views
216
Yerltvachovicic
Yerltvachovicic
Top Bottom