Change defensive pacts, please!

[s8g]

Hello,

I already did some searching, but I haven't found a satisfactory answer yet. Why are defensive pacts implemented the way they are now? It doesn't make any sense.

Right now, the pact is broken after a civ declares war on either of the parties. Instead the pact should only be broken if either of the parties declare war themselves.

There are several problems with the current rules. They all come from the not-completely simultaneous DoWs that happens when two civs agree to declare war on someone. This leads to the conclusion, that one of the other party of the pact is only at war with that civ that happens to have their turn first. Problems:

1. First of all, you'll make such pacts usually dependent on your threats, meaning you choose a civ that is adjacent to your potential enemy. With the current set-up, it will occur that your partner declares war on a distant civ that isn't really that great a threat and he or she couldn't harm anyway, while you have to deal with the enemy you wanted to hold at bay with the pact in the first place.

2. Secondly they don't encourage keeping the peace enough that way. Defensive pacts are more important since BNW (at least that is how I feel), since the peacemonger approach is more viable. These pacts would be great if they could be counted upon. With the current set-up they only work partly and are therefore not that useful.

I would propose that defensive pacts should work like an alliance, meaning the one party is dragged into the war (not declares war itself), when the other party is attacked. That would fix the issues above.

Regards,
s8g

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Defensive Pact, it's just what it says on the tin.

You're not forming an alliance, you're PROTECTING the other player with the pact.

So when you're Siam, and you made the pact with Russia, and Huns attack Russia, then you by default attack Huns because they attacked "someone under your protection", and if Huns attacked you instead of Russia, then Russia attacks the Huns because you were under Russian protection.

I have NEVER signed Defensive Pacts, I find them useless. Because you risk getting the warmonger penalty by accident, and even more if say you had a DoF with Huns, and Huns attack Russia, not only are you the default aggressor, you also backstabbed and betrayed your friend the Attila.

 

[otaman1]

Or a prompt can just come up saying "Russia, whom is under your protection, is under attack by the Huns. Declare war on the Huns?" And if you say yes, you go to war. But if you say no, then the pact is broken.

 

[Barghaest]

Defensive Pacts don't encourage keeping the peace because they're not public knowledge. You don't get a message "A new Defensive Pact has been formed" like Research Agreements or Declarations of Friendship because these are secret agreements. The only ones aware of them are the two empires that signed it. That's another reason why some of your other friends might DoW a person with whom you have a DP... they don't know about it.

The Alliance system allows you to permanently merge teams which would mean aggressors would have to DoW BOTH of you (so they become the backstabbers not you) and it would also be public knowledge... part of the groundwork was in place for it (can see it under Technologies.xml) but it was never implemented. Whether they plan to revisit it with a later DLC/Expansion, I don't know, but I doubt it...

 

[qemist]

Pacts seem to be broken, I agree. They should not be ended by their becoming operative. If two civs gang up on you then your defensive partners should be at war with both of them, not just one. Their not being public is senseless. Like building a nuclear weapon as a deterrent and keeping it secret.

I have seen some odd behavior with DPs. Such as agreeing a DP, then a few turns later when I speak to the same leader a DP is still on the table.

 

[Barghaest]

I have seen some odd behavior with DPs. Such as agreeing a DP, then a few turns later when I speak to the same leader a DP is still on the table.

If either member of DP declares war on someone else (before DP is triggered) it ends the DP. So if either you or the other civ started a new war between forming the DP and the second time you spoke to the leader, the DP was terminated. That is how they work (as intended) that aggressive behavior nullifies the agreement. Defensive Pact is also an agreement that both parties will go on the defensive... either party going on the offensive breaks the terms of the pact.

 

[Talcove]

A few things would fix the Defensive Pact:
1) MAKE DEFENSIVE PACTS PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.

2) Rather than the Pact forcing you to declare war on whoever declares war on the other participant, anyone declaring war on a participant of a Pact should be notified that by doing so, they will be declaring war on both of the people involved in the pact.

3) Pacts should survive more than just one declaration on one of the members. They should only ever be broken by either one of the participants declaring war, or if the pact expires through time. If two people declare war on a Pact participant, with the second coming one turn after the first, then the Pact should be active for both of those declarations.

Furthermore, an info-addict type screen should be implemented directly into the game, such as the one from Civilization 3. It should detail all diplomatic relations: war, trades, trade routes, defensive pacts, et cetera.

 

[Browd]

Or a prompt can just come up saying "Russia, whom is under your protection, is under attack by the Huns. Declare war on the Huns?" And if you say yes, you go to war. But if you say no, then the pact is broken.

With no consequences? Not honoring a defensive pact when it is triggered should be regarded as a more significant backstab than DOWing a friend.

And, to be even handed, the AI should have the same option -- which will lead to more players accusing the AI of cheating when it chooses not to uphold its side of a defensive pact.

 

[phillipwyllie]

They should make it when the AI declares war on someone you have a pact with you get a popup to their emissary saying "we have a defensive pact", then the AI(or human) player can decide to either go ahead with the DOW or not. Also you shouldn't be a backstabber as you aren't the aggressor here.

 

[Browd]

Seems to me we have a couple of backstab issues here.

First, if you have the opportunity to back out of the DP when it is invoked (your DP partner is DOWed by another), that is a backstab in my book -- you reneged on a promise they were relying on.

Second, and the main reason I never use DPs, is the case where someone you have a DOF with is the aggressor, DOWing your DP partner. In the current construct, you are regarded as DOWing the aggressor when you honor the DP. If you have a DOF with them, you have backstabbed them, which has negative diplo consequences to that civ (but who cares, really) and all other civs (which is the real problem).

One solution would be to reverse that mechanic -- the aggressor civ is deemed to have DOWed you, so he is the backstabber. Solves the problem, but it arguably makes DPs too attractive to the human player. Spam DPs and DOFs with everyone in sight -- someone is bound to DOW someone, dragging you into wars where you are the aggrieved party and the victim of multiple backstabs. Diplo is already easy enough to manipulate.

Another, more modest solution is to eliminate the global backstabber penalty when you honor a DP against a friend. Still get backstabber viz the aggressor civ, but not other civs.

 

[qemist]

If either member of DP declares war on someone else (before DP is triggered) it ends the DP. So if either you or the other civ started a new war between forming the DP and the second time you spoke to the leader, the DP was terminated. That is how they work (as intended) that aggressive behavior nullifies the agreement. Defensive Pact is also an agreement that both parties will go on the defensive... either party going on the offensive breaks the terms of the pact.

You must post a link to the text of these pacts for us!

 

[Barghaest]

You must post a link to the text of these pacts for us!

http://www.dndjunkie.com/civilopedia/CONCEPT_DIPLOMACY_DEFENSIVE_PACT.aspx

 

[Browd]

Since I haven't used DPs since vanilla, I'm curious about how these two sentences in Civilopedia interact:

"If a signatory to a Defensive Pact is attacked, the other partner is automatically at war with the attacker." "The Defensive Pact is nullified if one of the participants declares war on anybody."

Does this mean that when the DP is triggered (my DP partner is attacked by a third party), and I am automatically at war with the aggressor, the DP is nullified (as to future aggressors) due to my auto-DOW of the initial aggressor? If so, that would seem to be a poor mechanic, particularly where several AI have colluded to do multi-DOWs on my DP partner (I'm only at war with the first DOWing aggressor, but not the others, since the DP was nullified by my auto-DOW?).

 

[RedThree]

I always wished that the DPs worked similarly to the WWI alliances where the issues with two nations actually wound up involving EVERYONE because of all the defensive pacts people had.

 

[georgie]

I always wished that the DPs worked similarly to the WWI alliances where the issues with two nations actually wound up involving EVERYONE because of all the defensive pacts people had.

This. This would be fun.

 

[s8g]

Well, thanks for the replies.

Defensive Pact, it's just what it says on the tin.

You're not forming an alliance, you're PROTECTING the other player with the pact.

I do understand how they work. But this changes not the fact that it's contra-intuitive and works in other games better. If it's only a two-way guarantee, Firaxis should named it different.

It seems to me, there are three different issues noted in the thread:

1. DPs should be public, so they could be counted into the decision if one declares a war or not. Also this would help the peacemongering a lot.
2. DPs should work like a defensive alliance, meaning that they would not be broken upon the DoW on either party.
3. DPs should give the player the option if he truly wants to DoW the aggressor.

Well, I understand the first point and would have nothing against it. The second point was my original one and I still find it valid: it would be more intuitive if the DP would work like an alliance with the only difference that it is broken if either of the parties declare war themselves.
But I'm against the third idea. What would be the point of a pact that couldn't be counted upon? I agree that would be more realistic, but I don't think that Civ is bound to be realistic.

 

[Ll1442]

It seems to me, there are three different issues noted in the thread:

1. DPs should be public, so they could be counted into the decision if one declares a war or not. Also this would help the peacemongering a lot.
2. DPs should work like a defensive alliance, meaning that they would not be broken upon the DoW on either party.
3. DPs should give the player the option if he truly wants to DoW the aggressor.

Well, I understand the first point and would have nothing against it. The second point was my original one and I still find it valid: it would be more intuitive if the DP would work like an alliance with the only difference that it is broken if either of the parties declare war themselves.
But I'm against the third idea. What would be the point of a pact that couldn't be counted upon? I agree that would be more realistic, but I don't think that Civ is bound to be realistic.

Also, I think there should not be a penalty for DOWing that aggressor, since its a defence act, or at least not as much, depending on your relation with the other civs.

btw, plz write if its being changed.

 

[Barghaest]

What I'd rather see is them finish the code for Alliances... which would be in line with the way many people want DPs to work. It's been a long time since I played Civ IV, but if I recall correctly they had Alliances in that game just never finished implementing them in Civ V. I guess we can hope they actually do one more expansion for Civ V that does something with a lot of the unused flags already present in the game (Alliances, Leaders, "pirate units" - flags for HiddenNationality and AlwaysHostile in the UnitPromotions table, feature "growth", etc.)

Interesting side note: both World Wars were sparked by basically a myriad of defensive pacts being called due.

 

[isau]

Whatever else gets changed, the fix that is sorely needed is you shouldn't be able to declare war on someone you have a DoF with because of a Defensive Pact. It's really silly that you get a "backstab" modifier for this currently if one of your friends attacks your Defensive Pact civ, since you had no control over whether you would declare war on them. THEY backstabbed YOU.

 

[Cedbird]

Defensive Pacts don't encourage keeping the peace because they're not public knowledge. You don't get a message "A new Defensive Pact has been formed" like Research Agreements or Declarations of Friendship because these are secret agreements. The only ones aware of them are the two empires that signed it. That's another reason why some of your other friends might DoW a person with whom you have a DP... they don't know about it.

There may not a message going across the screen of the Defensive pact.But I am pretty sure I have seen the AI wait till my defense pacts are up to attack me.That is why I like to stagger them .I try to stagger them about ten turns apart to give me a little breathing room to think of my next moves.