[R&F] Alliances mess up diplomacy big time !

[tedhebert]

I was excited about the alliance upgrades in R&F when they were announced...

I like the ides that the longer you've been allied with a civ, the better the rewards... So I've been managing to always have 5 alliances going (or at least 4) in my games since R&F came out, and... MEH ;-(

The system itself is nice, still not sure the bonuses are worth the hassle, but what really kills it for me is how much I constantly keep being dragged into wars I never wanted, nor expected... Your allies keep declaring and you keep being dragged into it, most of the times at a bad moment (ie when your units are badly placed VS units of the civ your ally picked, and you get picked off)...

The latest game I'M playing takes it to another notch... this is the 3rd time I get dragged into wars I didn't really want, usually with 2 CIVS and 3-5 CS at the same time... Of course, sometimes it's useful, and I may be wrong, but the warmongering seems less when I'm in a situation like this and I conquer cities, but still...

In the end, I like being in control of my wars, not being dragged into them by an ally that doesn't even ask you the time of the day about it...

Is it just me that feels like this ? IMHO, if an ally goes to war, I should be asked about it and allowed to escape the alliance if I don'T want it... I'm ok with defending if my ally is DOWd on, just not the other way around...

 

[Karpius]

Is it just me that feels like this ? IMHO, if an ally goes to war, I should be asked about it and allowed to escape the alliance if I don'T want it... I'm ok with defending if my ally is DOWd on, just not the other way around

Sort of sounds like real world geo-politics. Almost, anyway.

But thats the tricky part of most alliance systems. You are making a 'dea' to come when called. I suppose a mechanic could be inserted to let you out of a war you didn't want, but there would have to be a very, very severe diplomatic penalty.

When it comes to diplomacy - in game or in world - every advantage comes with a disadvantage. Its the nature of the beast.

 

[MrRadar]

The title of this thread looks like it could be a headline in some European newspaper in 1914...

 

[bonafide11]

I don't think you should be dragged into the war if your ally is the aggressor. You should have an option anyway.

I also wish alliances were more transparent. I declare war on someone and then several turns later I find out I'm at war with someone else because they happen to be allies with the person I attacked.

 

[OmegaDestroyer]

My biggest gripe with alliances is how slow they grow. Even as Cleopatra with diplomacy cards, I only ever got about +2.5 growth or so a turn on Epic. I've never even come close to getting a level 3 alliance.

 

[AlannaT]

I might be wrong but what I remember from my games differs from OP:

• If your ally declares wars against someone else you do not automatically declare war too.
• If your ally receives a war declaration you automatically declare war on the aggressor.
  
• Exception: If one of your allies receives a war declaration but you are also allied to the aggressor you don't declare war on anyone.

That said for the most part I only have 1-3 parallel alliances and I never managed 5 at the same time.

As stated I might be wrong. Maybe I tend to ally myself to the more peaceful civs and thus they just don't declare wars and drag me into them. But I certainly assumed alliances to (only) include a defensive pact and not a "joint war whenever you feel like it" guarantee.

 

[King Rad]

I might be wrong but what I remember from my games differs from OP:

• If your ally declares wars against someone else you do not automatically declare war too.
• If your ally receives a war declaration you automatically declare war on the aggressor.
  
• Exception: If one of your allies receives a war declaration but you are also allied to the aggressor you don't declare war on anyone.

That said for the most part I only have 1-3 parallel alliances and I never managed 5 at the same time.

As stated I might be wrong. Maybe I tend to ally myself to the more peaceful civs and thus they just don't declare wars and drag me into them. But I certainly assumed alliances to (only) include a defensive pact and not a "joint war whenever you feel like it" guarantee.

This has been my experience as well. I haven't been involved in wars started by others in my alliance. And I've enjoyed this mechanic, although the effects have varied. I've only reached a level 3 alliance once. there have been times I've had 4 or 5 alliances going, but in my current game I've only been able to get two. And I've been declared on and/or denounced by at least four of the other civs at some point during the game [only at about turn 190 right now]. While I could see some minor tweaks with this as with many areas of the game, I've enjoyed them and they seem to be working as intended for me. Only major problem is after declaring an economic alliance with Japan, I find out none of my trade routes can reach that far yet! And we're on the same land mass. But at least the level is growing over time and I see gold in our future!

 

[tedhebert]

I might be wrong but what I remember from my games differs from OP:

• If your ally declares wars against someone else you do not automatically declare war too.
• If your ally receives a war declaration you automatically declare war on the aggressor.
  
• Exception: If one of your allies receives a war declaration but you are also allied to the aggressor you don't declare war on anyone.

hmmm... Ok I'm going to look into this more closely then... I really got the impression that I DID get a few instances where my ally seemed to be the one that DOWd, but I might be wrong...

I did get situations where i did NOT get dragged into it, but it always seemed to be when I had alliances with both sides of the DOW

 

[Zenstrive]

Imagine that as Cree where you have five alliances going. Constant war after industrial age. Hey, good reasons to gobble up the war declarers without racking up warmonger penalty.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Yea I'm pretty sure this isn't a thing since I need to have my ally declare a joint war before they go along with me.

 

[kryat]

I think a good way to improve this feature would be requiring a vote between allies to declare war offensively. This does get a little complicated though because not all allies are allies with the same nations. Maybe only the military alliances should behave in this way? I think it would also help if there was the ability to break alliances at any given time, but doing so would incur massive diplomatic penalties with that nation and that nation only.

On the other hand, if you are dragged into a war because someone declared war on them, I think it’s perfectly reasonable, since alliances are now the same as defensive pacts.

 

[Karpius]

So are people saying they want the alliance without the obligation?
Do people want NO penalty if they choose to break the alliance?
If so, what is the purpose of the alliance?

 

[tedhebert]

So are people saying they want the alliance without the obligation?
Do people want NO penalty if they choose to break the alliance?
If so, what is the purpose of the alliance?

That's a very valid point...

First, of course I do not want NO penalty if I chose to back out of an alliance... I think there should be a penalty that is aligned with the type of alliance you have

Second, as I said before, I'm totally on board on the "defensive pact" aspect of the alliance... if your ally is DOWd on, you should be expected to help him/her defend...

It's what happens when my ally decides to go on the warpath that I was referring to...

Some people in this thread have expressed doubts on the fact that you are dragged into a war when your ally is the aggressor... I haven't had the time to double check yet... If that is true, then I see no real problem... if it isn't, then I think that:

1) As an ally I should be forewarned of the incoming DOW and
2) I should be allowed to accept to join or not... and then the ally should be allowed to decide that it's a valid reason to break off the alliance if I decide to back out, and apply a penalty...

 

[WillowBrook]

I think I've seen this situation where the defensive pact aspect causes you to get pulled into a war where your ally is the aggressor:

Civs A and B are allied; civs C and D are also allied.

Civ A is the aggressor and declares on civ C. In response, civ D declares on A because of their defensive pact. But then civ B has to declare on civ D and is declared on by C even though its ally was the original aggressor.

So without some special condition indicating who the original aggressor is and limiting the effect of the defensive pacts, if one of your allies declares on someone who also has an alliance, you'll get pulled in, too.

 

[Duuk]

1914 called. They'd like to discuss your observations with you.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Alliances have fixed one of the main problems with diplomacy in Civ 6 (and Civ 5): There was pretty much no benefit in pursuing good relations. It didn't matter if someone denounced you or had a declaration if friendship. You could have research agreements, but those were mostly useless. Now there's at least some benefit and level 3 alliances can be very powerful.

I've even managed to become allies with two civs who hated each other for a long time. Both got a mutual relations boost for being friends with their friend and eventually all three of us were allied to each other. That kind of thing was unthinkable before R&F.

All they have to do now is severely restrict joint wars -like make them only available if both aggressors have denounced the target- and increase alliance points per turn.

 

[Question]

Two main flaws of the alliance system :

-Automatically getting dragged into wars with no popup warning (if an AI declares war on you, you get the diplomacy screen where it says so, you dont get it if you get dragged into a war)

This wouldnt be as big of a problem if the AI wasnt dumb. They dont seem to take alliances into account at all when declaring war.

-Allies dont care about the CSes that you are suzerain of and will happily declare war on your CSes because you cant stop them. You obviously cant declare war to protect your CSes so allying with the AI is basically giving them a free pass to attack all your CSes.

Was it really that hard to code the game so that you cannot declare war on a CS that your ally is a suzerain of? It is so exploitable.

 

[kingofsealand]

I have to agree with OP In my last game I purposely stopped allying France because the minute I did the next turn I would get a notification that they had declared war and two others declared on them. It's difficult to pick apart though whether they were the aggressor or whether one of the two allies attacked them, And they responded etc.

Yet, in this same game I got a betrayal emergency (that wasn't even much of a betrayal Peter supposedly "betrayed" me but he has just made a new alliance he didn't try to attack jack) and that emergency gave me a production bonus on trade routes to other participants which included my hated neighbor Pedro. I decided just exploiting that free benefit and ignoring the emergency was better than being allied because of what a pain being dragged to war is. Yea arsenal of democracy is nice but not worth dealing with a war every time I turn around.

Maybe it was just bad timing, but it certainly felt like France saw my military as theirs and thought "hey, my allies units sure could use something to do!" And just continually pressed me into conflicts in which they did little to nothing. To boot, she kept harassing me to make a new alliance in the endgame when I had decided to ignore her she must have missed ordering my troops about.

 

[WillowBrook]

Was it really that hard to code the game so that you cannot declare war on a CS that your ally is a suzerain of? It is so exploitable.

This. It's perhaps my top gripe with the game as is.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Was it really that hard to code the game so that you cannot declare war on a CS that your ally is a suzerain of? It is so exploitable.

Yup, I'll agree with this one, too. Seems contrary to the intent of an Alliance.

I suppose you could view the current state of things as "be careful who you Ally with", but the AI's propensity to attack City States appears (to me) to be more random than predictable. I'd rather you be faced with the handcuffs of not attacking City States of the AI's you've allied with.