A moral dilema

[Redcoyote]

I am playing as Caesar of Rome and have a mutual protection pact with Egypt, France,Russia and the Aztecs. The Egyptians asked for my help against the Chinese and I helped but the Egyptians ended up wiping out the Chinese.
Now I am helping the Russians with the English. I have control of 3 or 4 English cities and the Russians razed two cities. I signed peace with the English but the Russians keep on perusing them and they want me to help against the English again.
Funny how a game can make you feel guilt about such things. Anyone else have anything similar to this? How did you or would you handle it ?

 

[vmxa]

Play Always War and not have that issue. You DoW everyone you met and never make peace, simple. No dilemma, well maybe staying alive.

 

[Desertsnow]

I can understand what you mean about guilt. This game simulates a world, and your part in it.

Anyway, don't have too many Mutual Protection Pacts active at once. By too many I mean more than one, if any at all. They'll inevitable come into conflict so that you'll end up forced to betray either one of these pacts or a peace treaty. How's that for guilt? Furthermore, you'll take a reputation hit if this happens. Most experienced players avoid signing MPPs altogether, and just sign alliances if war breaks out. I myself rarely get into them.

As for the war itself, we eventually learn to go ahead and fight if someone declares war. If you need to make an alliance, do so. Just go out and kick some butts.

 

[Ataxerxes]

I can understand what you mean about guilt. This game simulates a world, and your part in it.

Anyway, don't have too many Mutual Protection Pacts active at once. By too many I mean more than one, if any at all. They'll inevitable come into conflict so that you'll end up forced to betray either one of these pacts or a peace treaty. How's that for guilt? Furthermore, you'll take a reputation hit if this happens. Most experienced players avoid signing MPPs altogether, and just sign alliances if war breaks out. I myself rarely get into them.

As for the war itself, we eventually learn to go ahead and fight if someone declares war. If you need to make an alliance, do so. Just go out and kick some butts.

I tend to dislike MPP's as well. The AI rarely does anything substantial to help and you then can get dragged into wars you don't want. When I go to war I try to restrict it as much as possible to situations where I stand to gain something. I'm glad to find I'm in with more experienced players in this. I thought it was just me.

Since getting ahead in Civ3 involves war so much I feel it's important to be selective - go after somebody who has a resource you need or is so close his cities will be nice to have. MPP's aren't as bad as ROP's, however. Those I truly hate.

 

[Redcoyote]

So for some reason i didn't save the game when I last played so i went back to right before I nuked London with an ICBM. This time Russia decided to make peace with England and I didn't nuke London this time.
now Egypt (Cleopatra is elected head on the UN and I lose. But I kept playing and what happened was I made a mpp with England and Egypt attacked England. So I helped England take down Cleopatra. i wonder if there will be anew new election now?

 

[vmxa]

No, the game has satisfied one of the victory conditions. No further victory conditions will apply, hence no further vote. You can play on, but no win can be recorded.

 

[Redcoyote]

Doh!!!

 

[Desertsnow]

So for some reason i didn't save the game when I last played so i went back to right before I nuked London with an ICBM. This time Russia decided to make peace with England and I didn't nuke London this time.
now Egypt (Cleopatra is elected head on the UN and I lose. But I kept playing and what happened was I made a mpp with England and Egypt attacked England. So I helped England take down Cleopatra. i wonder if there will be anew new election now?

You probably at least learned the outrage that can ensue when someone uses a nuke.

Anyway, as vmxa said, once the game has been one by anybody in any way, it can't be won in a different way. You can play on, to satisfy curiosity but if to win you need to start a new game.

At least you're learning. We all begin as beginners.

 

[Lanzelot]

MPP's aren't as bad as ROP's, however. Those I truly hate.

ROPs (btw: there is no apostrophe in the plural form, only for the Genitive... ) are very usefull. I always sign them as soon as I can: when playing a peaceful game, it makes the AIs attitude much better and they won't attack me. (A few gifts and trades help as well.) And in a millitary game I can bring my troops into position before the attack...
So for me, ROPs are godsent. If you are worried about sneak attacks, just blockade your border with some units/workers, so the AI can't enter your territory, or keep one unit in each city. The AI will never attack you then. (I guess only an empty city that can be taken for sure is enough temptation to make the AI break a ROP?!)

 

[timerover51]

I pretty much avoid cooperating with the AI at all costs. I have not done it much, and I cannot say that the times that I did it really helped me in any way. I will trade for world maps, as I normally play on huge maps, and sometimes sell Techs, but that is about it. Even playing the WW2 Pacific scenario as one of the Allies, the AI is of very little help.

 

[Everkane]

ROPs (btw: there is no apostrophe in the plural form, only for the Genitive... ) are very uefull. I always sign them as soon as I can: when playing a peaceful game, it makes the AIs attitude much better and they won't attack me. (A few gifts and trades help as well.) And in a millitary game I can bring my troops into position before the attack...
So for me, ROPs are godsent. If you are worried about sneak attacks, just blockade your border with some units/workers, so the AI can't enter your territory, or keep one unit in each city. The AI will never attack you then. (I guess only an empty city that can be taken for sure is enough temptation to make the AI break a ROP?!)

This is not necessarily true. Lots of times I've been attacked by the AI with a ROP and Polite attitude. I even remember a HoF game which Portugal invaded me and began to use my roads till they find a not-so-good defended city to attack. It was like a cat-mouse till I finally decided to let a city with only one defender, then he attacked and the war began.

ROPs are pretty useless if it's not for a matter of crossing the AI's territory to get to the other side quicker. Of course if you are playing to quickly destroy them all you can sign ROPs then attack since you don't need a good reputation.

Otherwise, stay away!

About MPP, I only sign them when I'm about to build UN to be elected since the AI have a thing for MPP candidates
If it's not, there is no reason to sign them also (other then some particular reasons that rarely happens).

 

[MrRandomGuy]

I've had England attack me with a Gracious attitude and a ROP up. The funny thing is, she attacked with an infantry THEN sent the cavalry in after the ROP was broken. Had she sent cavalry in first I would have been screwed.

ROP's are good at the beginning of the game, but towards the end just avoid them unless you want to do a ROP rape.

 

[Theov]

If I would feel sorry for the English, I wouldn't attack them or would make a pact with them, not with someone else.

 

[monotonous]

only sign that pact when you are weaker than or equal with that civ, and i don't think you should sign more than one, depends on the scenario though

back to your situation, i used to think like this too, or countries i like i don't want to invade, but now i really just care about my own benefit, don't miss the best opportunity, and don't watch any country become big and not doing anything.

my point is, if you are a peaceful builder, don't sign more than one mpp, if you want war don't feel guilty as long as you don't breach an existing agreement, making a plan is the key

 

[Aabraxan]

IMHO, the only reason to ever sign an MPP is so that you can use it to set off multiple wars, kind of a "Mutual Protection Pact of Doom."

 

[Rodrig0]

Alternativelly, you can sign MPP with a civ to make it break its MPP it has with another civ. Huh? Say, you want to attack civ A, but A has MPP with B, wih whom you're trading peacefully and don't want to start a war with. Just sign MPP with B, declare war on A but don't attack right away, let them attack first so B will be forced to declare on them as well and break their MPP. Now feel free to mop the floor with A. Then with B for backstabbing their friends. Then with everyone else for just being there mwahaha!!

 

[monotonous]

Alternativelly, you can sign MPP with a civ to make it break its MPP it has with another civ. Huh? Say, you want to attack civ A, but A has MPP with B, wih whom you're trading peacefully and don't want to start a war with. Just sign MPP with B, declare war on A but don't attack right away, let them attack first so B will be forced to declare on them as well and break their MPP. Now feel free to mop the floor with A. Then with B for backstabbing their friends. Then with everyone else for just being there mwahaha!!

if civ A is a huge industrialized (with railroad covered) empire and you have a long border, you let it attack for one turn is pretty scary, i had that once, attacked by like 50+ infantry, 20+ tank, and countless cavalry, it was my biggest civ3 nightmare

 

[agonistes]

I made the mistake once of having a RoP and a huge stack of artillery sitting on a hill undefended near my capital, with railroads up.

I was using the RoP to build RRs through a neighbor so I could move troops quickly through his territory, and save him from death.

Git.

RoP are useful to preserve rep. I believe if you are asked to leave someone's territory, and start the next turn in their territory, your rep suffers a hit. So if you have an embassy you can RoP with them and save your rep if your unit can't move out of their territory. I usually use this when scouting shorelines with my navy and I don't want my rep to suffer.

 

[Aabraxan]

. . . . I believe if you are asked to leave someone's territory, and start the next turn in their territory, your rep suffers a hit. . . . .

I've never heard this. Can anyone who understands rep better than I do confirm this?

 

[agonistes]

I believe I took that info from an article by Bamspeedy. Its in the forum somewhere - the article I mean, although I'm not 100% it was Bamspeedy who wrote it.

edit: I'll take a quick look for it.

Okay, I wasn't accurate. The effect concerns attitude, not rep, and is only temporary. I was under the belief it was permanent:

+1 If they ask you to leave their territory, +4 if you are given the orders to leave or declare war. These are only temporary, and as long as you leave when forced to, you get the points back the next turn. You can continually send 1 troop in, spend 1 turn there and claim you will leave, leave when you are forced to, but go back into their territory the next turn, and the AI attitude will not drop in the long run, just keep cycling between +/- 5 pts.

The quote is from Bampseedy's AI Attitude article in the War Academy. If you read the article, it is clear that a + signifies a negative attitude adjustment.