Defensive pact&Declaration of Friendship

[Shalvan]

If you have a defensive pact with a civ and a guy you have a DoF with attacks your defense ally, why do you get a diplo penalty for backstabbing? It's not like it is your choice whether you go into the war or not - you are automatically in war with the attacker.

 

[Aristos]

You have to be very careful with diplo in this game. DP are especially sensible; it's usually a good idea to carefully check the relations of your potential DP partner, to try and catch the possibility that something like what you report could happen, and avoid it.

Bottom line, never make a DP with the enemy of your friend. Unless it is a true backstab from your friend to your DP partner, it can be claimed that it was your oversight. Not defending the design here, I know it is a little unforgiving, but trying to rationalize it (and by doing just that, you will soon discover that you play much better).

 

[HerrDoktor]

Honestly, it sounds more like a bug (or an oversight). In previous iterations, there was no penalty for being forced into a war when two allies attack each other.

 

[ToodleElNoodos]

That's something you should look out for. If I want to beat up this dweeby punk who keeps talking bad about me and my good ole friend stands up for him and not me, you traitor!

 

[Yzman]

Honestly it makes sense. Imagine if the US signed a defense pact with Egypt and then also with Israel and then Israel attacked Egypt and we were forced to go to war with Israel. Everyone would stay we betrayed Israel.

 

[EK834]

Honestly it makes sense. Imagine if the US signed a defense pact with Egypt and then also with Israel and then Israel attacked Egypt and we were forced to go to war with Israel. Everyone would stay we betrayed Israel.

Honestly it makes sense. Imagine if the US signed a defense pact with Egypt and then also with Israel and then Israel attacked Egypt and we were forced to go to war with Israel. Everyone would stay we betrayed Israel.

Except you wouldn't agree to sign a DP with Egypt against Israel, nor the reverse if you are friend with both nations.

That's where the feature is a somewhat game-ish or broken. DP should always be signed against specified threats, or at least exclude respective friends. When war starts between two of your allies, you should always face the choice of taking a side or sitting it out, with ensuing diplomatic consequences.

Pacts, alliances, and diplomacy and war as a whole could really use an overhaul in the next version of Civ. It's way too simplistic for the current state of the game. Curtailing pure warmongering is one thing, but it could really use a much more evolved system of casus belli and war goals, like acquiring strategic resources, or an access to the sea and it's trade routes if you're landlocked etc, with proper alliances in the vein of NATO or the Warsaw Pact in the late game and all.

 

[Arachnofiend]

Washington and Bismarck were famous for understanding the general foolishness of signing a defensive pact. They're two of the best AI's in the game, you should follow their example.

 

[Tachii]

I like the idea of signing defensive pacts against a specific civ rather than a generic effect against anyone who DoW on you.

 

[Breadsmith]

This is pretty much exactly how WW1 happened. Even better if your friend had a DP with another of your friends, who now has to DoW you.