Diplomacy Hole : Non-Aggresion

[Machi]

Wouldn't it be great if you could have non aggression pacts with a Civ?

This would mean that you are not at war and you are not their ally. So if they are attacked you don't have to defend them, but at the same time you know that they will not attack you (atleast without getting a rep hit)

What do you think?

Any chance Fireaxis will even listen to ideas like this?

[benjdm]

How is that different than a peace treaty ?

[DaSilva]

It would be like an MPP but you only get brought into the war if the civ you have the pact with is attacked not if that civ attacks someone else.

[etj4Eagle]

Originally posted by benjdm
How is that different than a peace treaty ?

In certain ways it is. With a peace treaty (well except for its first 20 turns), there is no penalty against just canceling and declaring war (assuming you have no troops in enemy territory). With a non-agression pact, you could not do that.

However, one thing that would have to be done to make this work correctly is that after 20 turns you are forced to renew it or discared it. That way when it is effect, you can't just end it and declare war. Or another way is that once you end the pact, you have a 5 turn wait before you can declare war with out a hit.

[wohmongarinf00l]

MPP's work the same way. u don't get drawn into an MPP
unless the other civilisation attacks ur ally.

[Juize]

MPP's work the same way. u don't get drawn into an MPP
unless the other civilisation attacks ur ally.

Non-Agression pact would be improved peace treaty.

[CRaider]

I remember this pact used to improve relations with minor nations in Imperialism 2 isnt it?

[Klasanov]

LOL. Can a peace treaty really be improved?

Seriously, it sounds more like an NAP to me, just under a different name.

[alja]

I would say if one needs a NAP to have no hostile actions between 2 countries the peace treaty is not very stable. I think a NAP treaty is less solide compare to a real peace treaty.

I would like to have more options in diplomacy too.
I never use 'Right of passage' because settlers do walk over my land and settle where I have little space left. Maybe this could be assigned to military units only.

One option for right of passage could be that you guide the units over your terrain or assign possible routes for them to avoid that they are everywhere in the end.

Also at the moment this agreement is a bilateral one. Both sites are getting rights. I would like to force a weaker nation only to allow ME right of passage

One option I would really like to have is 'Military help' without going directly to war. You can choose to support by money, units or resources.

[Trinity]

Originally posted by wohmongarinf00l
MPP's work the same way. u don't get drawn into an MPP
unless the other civilisation attacks ur ally.

Not quite true. Earlier in my current game, I had a MPP with Babylon. The next turn Babylon got into another MPP with the Iroquois. The Iroquois declared war on the Persians. Babylon declared war on the Persians, and I was obligated under the MPP to declare war on the Persians. Note: the Persians did not declare war first.

I stated earlier: If you are wanting to play a democracy or republic, stay the hell away from MPPs.

A non-aggression pact is about as worthless as a peace treaty. If you got war reparations in conjunction with a peace treaty (I got 10/turn from Persia, and 40/turn from England), the peace treaty has to be renewed after 20 turns.

[warpstorm]

The way a MPP works is that you are sucked into the fight if your pact member is attacked on his soil (well, his water counts, too). I've often had an MPP take 5 or 6 turns after my aggressive pact member starts a war before I get sucked into it.

I find them useful when I want to wipe one player out. I set up MPPs with everyone who will take them and make a war happen (usually by getting an alliance with someone whop won't become a pact member). I then position a sacrificial unit of the front.