Does anyone else find this annoying/infuriating?

Bergerperson

Bergerperson

An actual Canadian
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
528
Location
Canada
Ok, so in my current game as England, I had a defence pact with Arabia and was friends with he Aztecs. The Aztecs invade Arabia so I go to war with them. Yet I still got the, "You made a declaration of friendship with a civilization then declared war on them!" mark on my still ally, Arabia, and every other civilization.

This is the most ridiculous thing I have seen in this game. Is there any news on whether this negative mark will be edited so it only shows if YOU declare war and not if you automatically go to war with them through defence pacts in more patches or Brave New World?
 
Don't make defensive pacts with any civ who has not declared Friendship with all the civs you have.
You can use the first five words of that sentence, too. It's even more helpful.
 
What is missing is the choice. When a situation like that arises (or it could be even simpler, whenever a DP is called on), the player should have the choice of honouring the DP or abandon it. In the first case, if honouring the DP also implies going to war with a declared friend, then you get the horrible negative modifier (which maybe should only affect the former friend that declared war as he is the aggressor); in the second case, abandoning the Pact should have a specific negative diplo modifier regarding that, and may or may not affect all civs (as in "we don't trust a DP with you anymore" or similar).
 
The odd thing is, is that Arabia and the Aztecs were on pretty good terms. But I have had "experience" with Montezuma's irrationality from previous games, like when I bought a city from him for a good price, next turn him declaring war on me, and them when we got to peace he rubbed it off by saying there weren't any hard feelings...

But this kind of worked out actually. I'm still at war using his and the Iroquois' cities as batting practise for my new warplanes.
 
You know, having a friend declare war on you should automatically cancel the declaration. So if that was in place I wouldn't have had the negative mark on me because by declaring war on Arabia, Montezuma was also declaring war on me.
 
What is an "actual" Canadian? I am a Canadian, but am I "actual"? ;)
 
Yeah, stuff like this happens all the time. I hate it. Siam asked me to go to war with Spain, and when the time came, I went to war...only for Siam to denounce me. I was "warmongering".
 
ImperialChaos said:
Yeah, stuff like this happens all the time. I hate it. Siam asked me to go to war with Spain, and when the time came, I went to war...only for Siam to denounce me. I was "warmongering".
Click to expand...

Stuff like this is why I don't even bother being allies with anybody. In civ IV I always had at least two dependable allies. But in V, the AI are too fickle and backstabby.
 
Kind of what the real world is like. :D
 
Bergerperson said:
Kind of what the real world is like. :D
Click to expand...

As far as I remember, the Frenchmen whined for the Yankee's intervention until they got it... thousands of young Americans died in French soil to liberate them, yet soon thereafter... guess who started "hating" the Americans, basically accusing them of "Warmongers"? The French people.
 
Bergerperson said:
Ok, so in my current game as England, I had a defence pact with Arabia and was friends with he Aztecs. The Aztecs invade Arabia so I go to war with them. Yet I still got the, "You made a declaration of friendship with a civilization then declared war on them!" mark on my still ally, Arabia, and every other civilization.

This is the most ridiculous thing I have seen in this game. Is there any news on whether this negative mark will be edited so it only shows if YOU declare war and not if you automatically go to war with them through defence pacts in more patches or Brave New World?
Click to expand...

To be honest, it doesn't infuriate me at all. I just do DoFs in three situations:

1. To end a war of have some room to breathe while conquering a civ.
2. To make a research agreement, which I only enter when I can profit more than the other civ from it (for example, I finished rationalism, they didn't).
3. To try to delay an early war, but in this can go wrong sometimes.

Anyway, if you are friends with 2 civs that carry a grudge against each other, your influence with one of them will sure decrease if one of them starts a war. I try to stay away from things like that.
 
Aristos said:
As far as I remember, the Frenchmen whined for the Yankee's intervention until they got it... thousands of young Americans died in French soil to liberate them, yet soon thereafter... guess who started "hating" the Americans, basically accusing them of "Warmongers"? The French people.
Click to expand...

It was actually the Brits who were nagging for US intervention. And the French never said that Americans were warmongers. Degaulle didn't want foreign troops in his soil. And it is every nations sovereign right to do so. The US might have liberated them but it had no right to keep forces stationed there in the aftermath if the nation in question didn't approve it. The people were already seeing it as a second occupation.\

Its called freedom :)
 
pilot00 said:
It was actually the Brits who were nagging for US intervention. And the French never said that Americans were warmongers. Degaulle didn't want foreign troops in his soil. And it is every nations sovereign right to do so. The US might have liberated them but it had no right to keep forces stationed there in the aftermath if the nation in question didn't approve it. The people were already seeing it as a second occupation.\

Its called freedom :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, but DeGalle was completely irrational as well. From what I read on him, he was nothing more than a crybaby among the Allied leaders; He whined when the leaders didn't inform them on plans, he bugged the Americans to liberate Paris only so DeGalle could claim credit, he even whined and complained so much that he almost made a division among the Free French Forces.
 
Bergerperson said:
Yeah, but DeGalle was completely irrational as well. From what I read on him, he was nothing more than a crybaby among the Allied leaders; He whined when the leaders didn't inform them on plans, he bugged the Americans to liberate Paris only so DeGalle could claim credit, he even whined and complained so much that he almost made a division among the Free French Forces.
Click to expand...

I didn't say he was the best man for the job (President and general both), I am underlining the historical truth. It was not a single man only that detested the US troops. It was the French in general. Degaulle didn't raise the banner 'Yankees go home' by himself it was the French people. If you read about it, even as Degaulle withdrew the French armed forces from NATO command from 1958-1967, there were underlining agreements (namely the Lemnitzer-Ailleret pact) that detailed how the French armed forces would fall under alliance protocols in the event of a Soviet attack in Europe.
The withdrawal was a political move to placate rising tensions in the people who were seeing the US troops in their soil as foreign intervention.
 
I know that, I also know how France (And the United Kingdom) withdrew from the the American nuclear umbrella and created their own ballistic defences and weapons.
 
Aristos said:
What is missing is the choice. When a situation like that arises (or it could be even simpler, whenever a DP is called on), the player should have the choice of honouring the DP or abandon it. In the first case, if honouring the DP also implies going to war with a declared friend, then you get the horrible negative modifier (which maybe should only affect the former friend that declared war as he is the aggressor); in the second case, abandoning the Pact should have a specific negative diplo modifier regarding that, and may or may not affect all civs (as in "we don't trust a DP with you anymore" or similar).
Click to expand...

That would work. Similar to the "give me 10 turns to DOW" mechanic. Once the 10 turns are up the AI will ask you if you're ready. You can choose to honor the agreement or decline and receive a diplo hit.

which maybe should only affect the former friend that declared war as he is the aggressor
Click to expand...

I think it should affect everyone. Friends shouldn't sign defensive pacts with enemies of their friends. Granted, it can be very difficult to tell who will DOW who, but this speaks to a need for more visibility into AI relations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Henri Christophe
The Mongol conquest
Replies
5
Views
1K
lerrocco
L
B
Back after 19 Years, Winning on Deity
Replies
1
Views
401
Chalito
Chalito
Recursive
  • Locked
(6-20d) Nuclear Non-Proliferation Triggers 15 Turns of Locked War, No Sanctions
Replies
3
Views
497
Stalker0
S
J
Just finished my most thrilling game
Replies
0
Views
1K
Jdoug312
J
King Phaedron
Not living in America is a Denouncible Offense!
Replies
4
Views
2K
Quintillus
Quintillus
Top Bottom