Non-Aggression Treaties?

I've been wondering recently why Civ5 doesn't have some kind of form of a Non-Aggression Treaty, that Civs could sign to prevent constant wars or backstabbing. We don't know too much about any potential new treaty options in the expansion, so I thought I'd bring up the idea. It could be enforced like a peace treaty, completely negating the ability to attack a neighbor's units during the time period of the treaty.

The treaties would have various benefits. Peaceful players could potentially protect themselves from wars, shore up friendships with Civs, and use the offer of a treaty to fish out aggressive and/or backstabby Civs. And unlike a Declaration of Friendship, the treaty would actually have some teeth.

It would also be nice if we get some control over the length of treaties at some point.

What are your thoughts? Is this just a crazy idea? Would you ever sign a Non-Aggression Treaty with another Civ? Could this be useful in multiplayer to form trustworthy alliances?

I think that it would take the uncertainty (of backstabbing) out of diplomacy. Part of the fun is the unexpected. I think it is a bad idea unless it can be broken (with diplomatic consequences).

@Eagle, which is how exactly DoF works.. pretty much 90% I have never been back-stabbed by anybody with a DoF with me..

Eagle Pursuit said:

I think that it would take the uncertainty (of backstabbing) out of diplomacy. Part of the fun is the unexpected. I think it is a bad idea unless it can be broken (with diplomatic consequences).

Click to expand...

The whole point is that it *can't* be broken for the period it covers. That means the treaty is something that the parties shouldn't enter into lightly.

bcaiko said:

The whole point is that it *can't* be broken for the period it covers. That means the treaty is something that the parties shouldn't enter into lightly.

Click to expand...

See, I think DoF already covers the ground, plus there's not really any historical analogue.

The only non-aggression pact I can think of off the top of my head is Molotov-Ribbentrop, and we all know how that ended up.

i think it's a good idea but a civilization should be able to break the pact like germany did against russia in ww2

I think there is scope to build on Diplomatic treaties in CiV. hopefully GAK will fix the broken defence pacts, but another level to this where you can form an alliance would be good - and I don't mean the same teams controlled by one player (like Civ IV which was more like a union)

AbbieRevo said:

See, I think DoF already covers the ground, plus there's not really any historical analogue.

The only non-aggression pact I can think of off the top of my head is Molotov-Ribbentrop, and we all know how that ended up.

Click to expand...

DoF's is the most worthless feature in the supposed revamped Diplomacy that was/is Civ V.

Would most definitely prefer these Non-Agression Treaties then Declaration of Friendships, which are a waste of time. I'm hoping, like many others that diplomacy gets some type of revamp or tweaks, at the moment there is little to none positive, substantial relations. I'm remaining positive that religion will help diplomatic relations. We will soon see...

I'm guessing that most of the Civers who make up the "Declarations of Friendship are useless/stupid" camp play mostly wide or agressive games? As a Tall Builder, I can tell you that I make Declarations of Friendship all the fragging time. And only about 5% of the time do my friends ever backstab me. Even then, it's usually after a long, slow degradation of relations, so it's pretty easy to see coming.

Honestly, most of the Civ players I hear on these boards, I wouldn't be your friend either. You're all crazy! Conquering entire nations, intentionally expanding to cut off resources from other Civs, burning down cities, lying, cheating, stealing goldstacks before you declare war...

Can you really blame the AI for not wanting to be friends with someone with such sociopathic tendencies?

~R~

Raiki said:

Can you really blame the AI for not wanting to be friends with someone with such sociopathic tendencies?

~R~

Click to expand...

Amen.

I had a really large empire but I didn't kill anyone for it. Alot of civs were pretty willing to be friends with me, even willing to overlook me making friends with their enemies. They scolded me for it.

Denunciations didn't flood in until i went on a conquer spree.


I was in a couple of wars but I was on the defending side. Although I did take a city or two to punish the attacking civ. And went back into peace and NPCs were generally chill with that.

And civs that didn't have a friendship declaration with me got smooshed instantly like England and spain.

Poor England got 5 civs declaring war on her in a single turn with two more in the next turn. England went down very fast to just three cities left in space of like what 10 turns? And Spain went down very quick as well but I didn't have map visibility of her territory but she went down in score very fast that's all i know.

I had mass declaration of friendships going on.

To the point where Korea became afraid which's surprising. Cuz I never had someone afraid of me in late game. But when Korea asked me for declaration of friendship, I accepted, he became friendly.

And when I let it expire without renewing, Korea went back to being afraid. Renewed, he became friendly again.

And while I was having mass friendship, I had to like pony up several thousands of gold over 50-60 gpt. Was expensive but was fun funding three countries at same time while giving away luxury to who asked for it. I was rather large too. xD The map lent it to happening.

Only reason I went on conquer spree cuz there is nothing to do to play peacefully, can't trade etc etc.

Can't be broken?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet-German_Pact

Eagle Pursuit said:

I think that it would take the uncertainty (of backstabbing) out of diplomacy. Part of the fun is the unexpected. I think it is a bad idea unless it can be broken (with diplomatic consequences).

Click to expand...

Its pretty much the most predictable thing in civ 5 the AI will ALLYWAYS backstab you..

Pouakai said:

Can't be broken?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet-German_Pact

Click to expand...

haha. I know it may not be entirely historically accurate, but it would be nice to have a treaty that has more teeth than a DoF. After all, I can't break a peace treaty for a certain amount of turns, and I'm sure I can find historical examples of a peace treaty being immediately broken.

bcaiko said:

I've been wondering recently why Civ5 doesn't have some kind of form of a Non-Aggression Treaty, that Civs could sign to prevent constant wars or backstabbing. We don't know too much about any potential new treaty options in the expansion, so I thought I'd bring up the idea. It could be enforced like a peace treaty, completely negating the ability to attack a neighbor's units during the time period of the treaty.

The treaties would have various benefits. Peaceful players could potentially protect themselves from wars, shore up friendships with Civs, and use the offer of a treaty to fish out aggressive and/or backstabby Civs. And unlike a Declaration of Friendship, the treaty would actually have some teeth.

It would also be nice if we get some control over the length of treaties at some point.

What are your thoughts? Is this just a crazy idea? Would you ever sign a Non-Aggression Treaty with another Civ? Could this be useful in multiplayer to form trustworthy alliances?

Click to expand...

Defensive pacts are in the game for this reason. Get two or three with nearby civs and it will greatly reduce the chances of "backstabs" (which can usually be seen a mile away anyway). Yes, they can be broken, but that's okay with me - it keeps the game exciting and I dislike "hard" rules like that.

bcaiko said:

haha. I know it may not be entirely historically accurate, but it would be nice to have a treaty that has more teeth than a DoF. After all, I can't break a peace treaty for a certain amount of turns, and I'm sure I can find historical examples of a peace treaty being immediately broken.

Click to expand...

Peace treaties need to have enforced non-aggression measures, because of the AI's willingness to hand everything over at the end of a war; it keeps it from being (too) exploitable.

Seek said:

Defensive pacts are in the game for this reason. Get two or three with nearby civs and it will greatly reduce the chances of "backstabs" (which can usually be seen a mile away anyway). Yes, they can be broken, but that's okay with me - it keeps the game exciting and I dislike "hard" rules like that.

Click to expand...

Defense Pacts...aren't quite the same thing. It doesn't prevent either side from attacking the other and has the negative of bringing you into wars that are not your own. They're good for cementing block alliances, but not for allaying the spread of war.

bcaiko said:

Defense Pacts...aren't quite the same thing. It doesn't prevent either side from attacking the other and has the negative of bringing you into wars that are not your own. They're good for cementing block alliances, but not for allaying the spread of war.

Click to expand...

They're not exactly the same thing, but they're as close as we will see in civ5. Mechanics like this need to have some negative, otherwise they'd be too exploitable by the human. The biggest issue I have with DPs is that the AI never utilizes them.. I've never (in 2000 hours of play) had an AI invite me into a DP.

DoF's are worthless as they just brew trouble for an already maniac AI/Diplomacy you actually have an easier time if you just reject every DoF from everyone as it doesn't add negative modifiers and if you do accept a DoF said "ally" does and will Denounce you and add a negative modifier canceling out the positive one!

As for Defense Treaties, they to are worthless as you get blamed for an ally attacking another ally without said belligerent get any of the blame.

Sometimes I think IV had it right with Diplomacy and V just took several leaps back.

I've never had issues with DoF, of course, you don't DoF with AI you know will backstab you, but AIs like Gandhi and Kammy, even Askia (who I found VERY loyal) will cement the "Friendly" Status, and most of the time they ignore the more negative modifiers like "Covet lands, wonders" and "Aggresive spread".

DoF aren't worthless, maybe on higher difficulty they become so, but I am yet to regret having a DoF, or see them as worthless.

It is also good to mention that I rarely if ever attack any Civs, so when I'm playing a peace-focused game, then of course I'll rarely end up being backstabbed.

You have to be calculating with DoF's. If you DoF someone that turns into the sour grapes of someone else a few turns later, you will get denounced by the other civ. Then people will ask you to declare war on your DoF's, and if you refuse, you take further diplomatic hits. And then if you don't come through and give into the needs of your DoF partner, he will denounce you after turn 25. Don't DoF unless that AI is on good terms with the major powers in your game. Otherwise you will look like North Korea backing Iran or something.