Defensive pact diplomatic hit

So I am signing a few defensive pacts in order to try to keep me safe. Then, everyone who used to be allies suddenly starts hating each other and BAM, a friend declares war on a city I have a defensive pact with and I get a diplomatic hit for declaring war on a person I had a defensive pact with. But I had absolutely no control over declaring war, and two turns later two peopled have DoWed. My economy is destroyed and I will most likely be crushed by people I was more or less okay with. All because I signed a defensive pact. I really hope this gets fixed in a patch at some point.

mrwho said:

So I am signing a few defensive pacts in order to try to keep me safe. Then, everyone who used to be allies suddenly starts hating each other and BAM, a friend declares war on a city I have a defensive pact with and I get a diplomatic hit for declaring war on a person I had a defensive pact with. But I had absolutely no control over declaring war, and two turns later two peopled have DoWed. My economy is destroyed and I will most likely be crushed by people I was more or less okay with. All because I signed a defensive pact. I really hope this gets fixed in a patch at some point.

Click to expand...

Yes, I usually try to avoid Dedensve Pacts altogether because I either might not be ready for war, don't want a Diplo hit, or because the other civ wont actually help you in the war at all!

The only way to get another civ to actively help in a war is make sure they share a border with your common enemy. They will not seek out the enemy so the only real benefit is diplo and enemies loss of trade deals with that civ.

Thats' why I never try to be BFF with everyone. My general rule - 1 defensive pact at a time. Usuall ywith civ that is basically my puppet.

Defensive pacts plunged us into WWI and WWII. So I'd say these are a bad idea, even if you have no other choice. It's very nice to have them in the game though.

For defensive pacts to be really worthwhile, you need a triangle of friendship (A with B, B with C, C with A) and then sign defensive pacts with both simultaneously if possible. That way you have at least two civs you can count on for trade and agreements.

Bibor said:

Defensive pacts plunged us into WWI and WWII. So I'd say these are a bad idea, even if you have no other choice. It's very nice to have them in the game though.

For defensive pacts to be really worthwhile, you need a triangle of friendship (A with B, B with C, C with A) and then sign defensive pacts with both simultaneously if possible. That way you have at least two civs you can count on for trade and agreements.

Click to expand...

Believe it or not that's more or less what I had going, then Arabia backstabbed Isabella, Isabella dowed on Arabia, and I was thrown into it all. I'm not complaining about the defensive pact landing me in a war with an ally, that's fair and realistic. But it shouldn't create a negative modifier with all other civs.

Is it true though that defensive pacts as a deterrent to warmongers?

mrwho said:

Believe it or not that's more or less what I had going, then Arabia backstabbed Isabella, Isabella dowed on Arabia, and I was thrown into it all. I'm not complaining about the defensive pact landing me in a war with an ally, that's fair and realistic. But it shouldn't create a negative modifier with all other civs.

Is it true though that defensive pacts as a deterrent to warmongers?

Click to expand...

I do not believe so. They only look at your military strength when going to war, which I believe should be changed also.

I dont think this is a patch issue...itsa diplomacy issue. The reality is (just like in real politics) you'll get in massive trouble if you try to be friends with everyone. Just doesn't work. You need to be selective with who you sign pacts with. As an example, I was playing a game as Portugal....I was friends with Indo, Poland, and Poly. I was at frequent war with Rome and Babylon, and sometimes Japan. Egypt was playing it smart refraining from battle, simply building wonders. anyway, they were the first to adopt an idealogy - Order. Jap, Bab, and Rome all followed suit. Indo and Poland adopted Auto. After this, Poly and I established a Def Pact, which actually helped against my war with Babylon more than once (and yes Poly was actively helping). After Poly adopted Freedom, I decided to go Auto, but I did not make any pacts with Indo and Pol. Long story short, I ended up winning a Diplo victory, but was very selective with choosing Friends and making pacts.


The issue with Defensive Pacts backfiring on you if you sign to many actually reminds me of another great game - Knights of Honor, by Black Sea Studios. A very underated game, it pits you as a medieval power in Europe/Mid East/Africa, where alliances and trades were contantly shifting. My first game I tried to be friends with everyone, but in the end I ended up alone with no friends and all enemies. It just cant be done; you have to be selective and strategic with your diplomatic choices.

Defensive Pact is the final 'top off' to DoF, by that I mean, it's essentially a guarantor of peace with an out clause if either of you declare war.

I don't use Defensive Pacts to protect myself exclusively, I use it to lower the chances as belligerant power will attack the Civ I'm signing with and if they do I get to pick off their cities. It is essentially a Machiavellian play where the human player is exerting influence and protecting a client state (not a city state mind you, but a full fledged Civ)

Also with the warmonger penalty changes, declaring war is not going to hurt you as much as taking lots of cities, so I don't really even consider DoW a thing anymore. If you just want to support a friend and not take any cities, your warmonger penalty will be nearly nothing.

As for unintended consequences, there's always that chance, but I'm not sure why anyone would bother playing Civ is everything is certain. Reading the political landscape matters. Usually I sign defensive pacts in 2s or 3s as Bibor suggested, and in the rare occasion I give it exclusively to someone else, the diplomatic landscape is such that it is unlikely I'll accidentally kill a DoF with it.

But that's the thing, I was selective with my DPs. When I signed both of them, the two AIs I signed them with were friends with each other, so I thought it was safe. Then Arabia backstabbed Spain and everything went sour. I just don't think it's a good gameplay mechanic that having a defensive pact with *anyone*, and then that person just happening to DoW on a friend of yours, gives a massive negative modifier with all the AI. I agree that there should be an element or risk and backfiring with defensive pacts, but not in that sense.

you can't control for backstabbing. Everytime you sign a DoF, a Backstab is possible. Also Backstabbing by DoW is also so rare that I don't consider it a problem. If it was just a plain backstab with no war, just let the DP run its course and don't renew. There would be no penalties

It's a risk. Which is why I asked rhetorically why anyone would want to play Civ if you know every single outcome.

Most of the actions in the game has a risk component to it. You just have to deal with it. It also makes you a better player in the long run, with fewer rage-quit sessions. And I speak from experience.

mrwho said:

But that's the thing, I was selective with my DPs. When I signed both of them, the two AIs I signed them with were friends with each other, so I thought it was safe. Then Arabia backstabbed Spain and everything went sour. I just don't think it's a good gameplay mechanic that having a defensive pact with *anyone*, and then that person just happening to DoW on a friend of yours, gives a massive negative modifier with all the AI. I agree that there should be an element or risk and backfiring with defensive pacts, but not in that sense.

Click to expand...

I hear what you're saying. Maybe the best thing to do is sign one and ONLY one DP. In the same game I alluded to, Pol, Indo, and I all had a tight friendship that was only further tightened by the fact that we all went Auto and kept going to war with Bab and Rome. Still, I didn't want to enter any DPs with either of them because I didn't want excessive war (it was tough fighting off Babs and Rome, especially since they were both on my continent - Rome was far away but kept attacking my trade routes; Bab kept attacking my cities). In the end it paid off. I had Diplos in both of their capitals, and found out that the alliance was falling apart - Poland was plotting against Indonesia. I am glad in that game that I chose to go for Diplo. Had I prolonged anything, things would have gotten VERY ugly with what looked liek a massive World War brewing.

dexters said:

you can't control for backstabbing. Backstabbing by dow is also so rare that i don't consider it a problem.

It's a risk. Which is why i asked rhetorically why anyone would want to play civ if you know every single outcome.

Most of the actions in the game has a risk component to it. You just have to deal with it. It also makes you a better player in the long run, with fewer rage-quit sessions. And i speak from experience.

Click to expand...

very well said!

dexters said:

you can't control for backstabbing. Everytime you sign a DoF, a Backstab is possible. Also Backstabbing by DoW is also so rare that I don't consider it a problem. If it was just a plain backstab with no war, just let the DP run its course and don't renew. There would be no penalties

It's a risk. Which is why I asked rhetorically why anyone would want to play Civ if you know every single outcome.

Most of the actions in the game has a risk component to it. You just have to deal with it. It also makes you a better player in the long run, with fewer rage-quit sessions. And I speak from experience.

Click to expand...

I'm all for taking risks. I just don't think it's a good gameplay mechanic that doing nothing more than having one Declaration of Friendship and one Defensive Pact can make the entire world hate you if your luck is bad. Random elements that you have no control over, like what I said, do not make good gameplay mechanics and is just frustrating. All I'm suggesting is a simple, probably one-line change in the coding so that you don't get massive diplo hits with all the other civs if you're forced into war with a friend without a defensive pact. I don't see how wanting this makes me anti-risk. And honestly, in the situation I explained, no amount of experience could have prevented what happened, unless you all-out refuse to sign defensive pacts. You can't cancel defensive pacts or declarations of friendship half way through, and a lot can happen in the time it takes them to expire. I suppose the only thing I can do is not make friends until ideologies, but that takes away a lot of diplomacy and also reduces the likelihood of other AI picking the same ideology you went for.

Rob5000 said:

I hear what you're saying. Maybe the best thing to do is sign one and ONLY one DP. In the same game I alluded to, Pol, Indo, and I all had a tight friendship that was only further tightened by the fact that we all went Auto and kept going to war with Bab and Rome. Still, I didn't want to enter any DPs with either of them because I didn't want excessive war (it was tough fighting off Babs and Rome, especially since they were both on my continent - Rome was far away but kept attacking my trade routes; Bab kept attacking my cities). In the end it paid off. I had Diplos in both of their capitals, and found out that the alliance was falling apart - Poland was plotting against Indonesia. I am glad in that game that I chose to go for Diplo. Had I prolonged anything, things would have gotten VERY ugly with what looked liek a massive World War brewing.

Click to expand...

It can still happen with only one DP. Player A signs a DP with player B. Player A is friends with player C. Player C and B are friends. B backstabs B so C declares war on B. Player A is forced into war with player C and the rest of the world hates him for it. Sure, refusing defensive pacts is a way to stop this happening, but ignoring a gameplay mechanic is not satisfying IMO. Then again I was only signing a DP in the first place because I was under the apparently false understanding that defensive pacts would prevent a DoW.

A short story:
Austria (small emmpire with only one city) was in war with Rome (the warmonger in my game) and I gave Rome about 50 GPT and some resources for a Peace Agreement with Austria to protect my friend and the RA. Then I thought it was a good idea to sign a DP with Austria to prevent Rome from attacking Austria again, I even sent a few naval Units to Austria to show my presence.
Well, everything went fine for a long time ... I even proposed an embargo against Rome to weaken it.
Then Rome declared war on Austria again together with Pacal (my friend) - the surprise: because of the DP I automatically declared war on Pacal - but not on Rome. I had to declare war on Rome separately to protect Austria.
So my question is: Is this normal? Why had I to declare war on Rome separately despite the DP?

Last time I used a defensive pact in BNW it failed to even work. I was expecting to be DoWed soon, so I signed a defensive pact with another civ that was very friendly to me and that civ failed to honour the pact.

And yes, defensive pacts expire as soon as they work once. Strange, I know.

There might be a bug with DP ;

I posted this on the main forum but got no replies; http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=12715618&postcount=51

This was pre hotfix and I haven't since a DP since, but Hotfix made no mention of fixing DP

The timer seems bugged if a pact if it is not allowed to run its couse due to DP kicking in

1) Sign DP
2) Other party is attacked, I DoW automatically as DP kicks in (this also seems to void the DP)
3) war progresses, peace declared and so on.
4) My DP ally comes back asking to renew, I accept
5) A few turns later, DP expires anyways and I can 're-renew' the pact.

It would seem like the DP is on its original timer and renewal after it has been voided doesn't reset the clock.

Anyone having this issue?

Click to expand...

sendos said:

Last time I used a defensive pact in BNW it failed to even work. I was expecting to be DoWed soon, so I signed a defensive pact with another civ that was very friendly to me and that civ failed to honour the pact.

Click to expand...

Maybe your DP friend had was still in a post-war cool down state with the civ that attacked you.

I don't see any issue here. Sounds to me like it is working as intended. Be careful when signing multiple pacts. I don't even use them honestly, they aren't helpful as they AI will rarely ever help you.