Alliances need to be fixed or modded

[Sly1foxy]

How often have you built really good relationships with multiple civs, only to have them declare war on you because they're allied with a civ that hates you?? I've had civs so friendly that I could request an alliance with them, declare war on me the next turn because they're allied with someone who hates me.

In my opinion, either they should never get as friendly with you in the first place if they are allied with someone who hates you (maybe never more than neutral?), or, if they are very friendly with you and their ally declares war, perhaps their relationship with you suffers 1 or 2 levels but they break their alliance and don't declare war?

I'm so sick of having multiple civs who I'm very friendly with suddenly declaring war because of alliances.

If anyone knows of a mod that helps this please let me know.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

No mods, but this is something that I've been very vocal on Discord about and I hope they fix it.

It makes no sense that if I attack another civ that this forces all of my allies to have to attack them.

Makes sense if I have to join my ally when they get attacked, like it was in previous games.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

speaking as an outsider (who hasn't played Civ7 yet), I think it would be best to have both: Alliances and Defensive Pacts.

Alliances would be this way: if your ally is attacked or attacks another civ, instead of auto-joining the war you get a Call to Arms which you can decline or accept. Declining will break your alliance with that civ and cause some heavy penalties like a decrease in Influence and/or a 'Dishonourable' relationship modifier with all leaders.

Defensive Pacts would be an agreement between two civs where if one is attacked the other will auto-join. (An alternative mechanic could have 'target players' for Defensive Pacts, you can decide which set of leaders you will jointly defend against).

Alliances would be harder to obtain, and usually only leaders with whom you have a good relationship will accept. Defensive Pacts would be easier to sign, more so between leaders that have the same power level and have common foes.

 

[stealth_nsk]

How often have you built really good relationships with multiple civs, only to have them declare war on you because they're allied with a civ that hates you?? I've had civs so friendly that I could request an alliance with them, declare war on me the next turn because they're allied with someone who hates me.

I don't see any problems here both from historical realism and gameplay perspectives. Unlike Civ5 backstabs, those are quite predictable - you could see relations between other civs, so if you see your ally having other alliances, you need to watch your back and try to make the alliance stronger.

In my opinion, either they should never get as friendly with you in the first place if they are allied with someone who hates you (maybe never more than neutral?), or, if they are very friendly with you and their ally declares war, perhaps their relationship with you suffers 1 or 2 levels but they break their alliance and don't declare war?

That's exactly an option within the system. Any player, including AI, could respond to ally going to war with either joining ally, or breaking the alliance. If two of your (or AI) allies become at war with each other, there are actually 3 options - joining either of them or not joining at all, in the latter case breaking both alliances.

I'm so sick of having multiple civs who I'm very friendly with suddenly declaring war because of alliances.

I play on Immortal and I can't remember last time it happened to me. Diplomacy is pretty manageable in this game, just needs some focus.

speaking as an outsider (who hasn't played Civ7 yet), I think it would be best to have both: Alliances and Defensive Pacts.

Diplomacy is one of the best things in Civ7, it's very dynamic and very functional in both SP and MP. It really doesn't need any unnecessary clutter.

I mean there could be some tweaks and improvements potentially, especially of more gameplay features would creep into the game and will need integration into diplomacy. But it's clearly not the area, which needs improvements now.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

There is a Mod (see below) which gives you a graphic showing the relationships between all the Civs in the game, from Alliance to War, likes and dislikes, etc. With that Mod installed - or better yet, something like it made part of the game officially - I find it very easy to keep track of Diplomacy.

As an example of the sort of thing the OP was referring to, the other day an AI Civ with which I had very good relations requested an Alliance. I checked the chart, found out he had Angry relationships with 4 other Civs. Refused the Alliance. Just for Grins, reloaded and accepted the Alliance, and within 2 turns he was at war with all 4 other Civs and I had requests to join in war against all 4 opponents.

The problem, IMHO, is not with the Diplomacy system in the game - that AI Civ in my example did exactly what any IRL historical Foreign Minister or in-game Human player would do, try to find allies when relationships with other Civs foretold an impending war - the problem is with Civ VII's good ol' UI which does not give the gamer the same information any half-competent Foreign Minister would have: what the relationships are Short of War between all his neighbors.

Install the Mod: Global Relations Panel and I think you will find playing with it makes Diplomacy a lot more manageable - and sensible.

 

[evonannoredars]

No mods, but this is something that I've been very vocal on Discord about and I hope they fix it.

It makes no sense that if I attack another civ that this forces all of my allies to have to attack them.

Makes sense if I have to join my ally when they get attacked, like it was in previous games.

Huh, didn't realise that that's what the difference was, explains why Civ 7 ends up with these endless war spirals whereas 6 didn't.

 

[Kwami]

Huh, didn't realise that that's what the difference was, explains why Civ 7 ends up with these endless war spirals whereas 6 didn't.

Well, kind of. The real problem in VI is that you're never called into war against your ally when your other ally declares war on them. That is, if you're allied to both A and B and A declares war on B, you won't be brought into the war and your alliances will both remain intact. In a 6-player game, you can ally everyone else and never get called into war. It's very broken.

 

[McSpank01]

I have openly tried to ignore all alliances in Civ 7.

The reason for that is that the only time I ever get an alliance request is when the AI wants to attack someone else, and declares war exactly the next turn. It is so obvious what is happening when you get a request that the only thing to do is turn them down lest you want to get into a war with someone else straight away

 

[UWHabs]

I tend to like a lot of the relationship management in 7, it feels a lot stickier than earlier versions.

But I do agree that how they handle wars and drawing allies into wars is inconsistent at best, and damaging at worst. IMO, what should happen:
-If an ally of yours is declared war on, the current setup makes sense. Either you join the war, or you suffer a penalty and break the alliance
-If an ally of yours declares war on someone else, you should be given the option to join the war, but are under no obligation. You suffer a small penalty for not joining the war, whether that breaks the alliance should depend on your relation at the time
What this would mean is that if two of your allies go to war, if you choose to stay neutral, you would actually stay allied with the aggressor, which in some sense makes sense since your staying "neutral" is tacitly accepting their declaration.

But yeah as mentioned, I do find myself constantly switching to check the relations tab, to make sure I know whether or not an alliance is going to lead to more or not.

 

[Sly1foxy]

Ok, some of you don't seem to understand my point...

I'm aware of everyone's relationships with each other. I'm constantly checking that. My problem is that If I am very friendly with a civ, and it is allied with someone who hates me, it will eventually declare war on me (a turn after its ally does). It's not a 90% chance, it's not an 80% chance, it's 100%. If that AI who hates me declares war on me then 100% his AI allies will declare war the next turn no matter how friendly I am with them. There should be a point where you're so friendly with an AI player that they will consider breaking their alliance rather than declare war on you...even if it ends up taking the two of you from friendly to neutral or something like that.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Ok, some of you don't seem to understand my point...

I'm aware of everyone's relationships with each other. I'm constantly checking that. My problem is that If I am very friendly with a civ, and it is allied with someone who hates me, it will eventually declare war on me (a turn after its ally does). It's not a 90% chance, it's not an 80% chance, it's 100%. If that AI who hates me declares war on me then 100% his AI allies will declare war the next turn no matter how friendly I am with them. There should be a point where you're so friendly with an AI player that they will consider breaking their alliance rather than declare war on you...even if it ends up taking the two of you from friendly to neutral or something like that.

This usually happens if your ally has better relations in the alliance against you than in alliance with you. If you really invest in strengthening your alliance, that's far from 100%. But the best way to manage it is just not go into conflicting alliance situation. Analyze the diplomacy situation beforehand and ally yourself with leaders who will not befriend your enemies.

 

[UWHabs]

This usually happens if your ally has better relations in the alliance against you than in alliance with you. If you really invest in strengthening your alliance, that's far from 100%. But the best way to manage it is just not go into conflicting alliance situation. Analyze the diplomacy situation beforehand and ally yourself with leaders who will not befriend your enemies.

I think it's a problem where if you're neutral or friendly, but not allied, it's annoying to have them pulled into a war against you, when the opponent is the aggressor. Obviously there are some cases where it should be able to happen, but it would be nice if it wasn't a guarantee. Or if there was like some sort of discussion that could take place. Like "Rome has declared war on you. Their ally Greece is considering joining the conflict. Do you accept them joining (0 influence) or support their neutrality (120 influence)?" in the same way we can accept or reject denouncements and some other actions.

 

[Kwami]

I think it's a problem where if you're neutral or friendly, but not allied, it's annoying to have them pulled into a war against you, when the opponent is the aggressor. Obviously there are some cases where it should be able to happen, but it would be nice if it wasn't a guarantee. Or if there was like some sort of discussion that could take place. Like "Rome has declared war on you. Their ally Greece is considering joining the conflict. Do you accept them joining (0 influence) or support their neutrality (120 influence)?" in the same way we can accept or reject denouncements and some other actions.

That would be really weird, though. Why should you get to decide who declares war on you?

 

[Krikkit1]

That would be really weird, though. Why should you get to decide who declares war on you?

I think a better way to do it might be

If A is allied to B is allied to C
and A declares war on C
An “Endeavor” gets Generated for B

Declare on C (rel boost with A)…war penalty for declaring war on ally
Stay neutral (lose both Alliances rel penalty with both)
Declare on A (rel boost with C)…war penalty for declaring war on ally


That way you can still get the War spirals, but Alliances tend to defend against them.

 

[Kwami]

I think the @UWHabs solution is the best one so far. You're called into war when an ally is attacked and lose the alliance if you refuse to help them, but joining an offensive war is optional and you only suffer a relations penalty if you decline to help them.

The only problem is when you're allied to both warring parties. I guess in that case, you pick a side and automatically lose the other alliance because I think the game would break if you went to war with an ally. Or stay neutral and lose the ally on defense, at least.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think it's a problem where if you're neutral or friendly, but not allied, it's annoying to have them pulled into a war against you, when the opponent is the aggressor. Obviously there are some cases where it should be able to happen, but it would be nice if it wasn't a guarantee. Or if there was like some sort of discussion that could take place. Like "Rome has declared war on you. Their ally Greece is considering joining the conflict. Do you accept them joining (0 influence) or support their neutrality (120 influence)?" in the same way we can accept or reject denouncements and some other actions.

Civilizations already could decline when asked to go to war. I don't think there should be additional trade - not only it would look really weird, but also would work pretty bad in multiplayer.

Honestly I don't see any problem with how it works now. You have good relations with someone who is allied with your enemy? You shouldn't be surprised if they eventually go to war with you. Instead of investing into making good relations with them, why not create your own block?

 

[Sly1foxy]

I think it's a problem where if you're neutral or friendly, but not allied, it's annoying to have them pulled into a war against you, when the opponent is the aggressor. Obviously there are some cases where it should be able to happen, but it would be nice if it wasn't a guarantee. Or if there was like some sort of discussion that could take place. Like "Rome has declared war on you. Their ally Greece is considering joining the conflict. Do you accept them joining (0 influence) or support their neutrality (120 influence)?" in the same way we can accept or reject denouncements and some other actions.

I love this idea. And the cost could be scalable based on how strong of a relationship they have

 

[Sly1foxy]

Civilizations already could decline when asked to go to war. I don't think there should be additional trade - not only it would look really weird, but also would work pretty bad in multiplayer.

Honestly I don't see any problem with how it works now. You have good relations with someone who is allied with your enemy? You shouldn't be surprised if they eventually go to war with you. Instead of investing into making good relations with them, why not create your own block?

Stealth..."Civs already could decline when asked to go to war" but that's the problem. The AI doesn't decline, EVER. Even when you've got a very good relationship with them and they are really outclassed. As some people have already stated, I could accept it if their allies always declare war on me when I'm the aggressor. But when they are the aggressor, and I've got a very good relationship with them (even better than they have with their ally) it shouldn't be 100% that they are going to join the war against me.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Stealth..."Civs already could decline when asked to go to war" but that's the problem. The AI doesn't decline, EVER. Even when you've got a very good relationship with them and they are really outclassed. As some people have already stated, I could accept it if their allies always declare war on me when I'm the aggressor. But when they are the aggressor, and I've got a very good relationship with them (even better than they have with their ally) it shouldn't be 100% that they are going to join the war against me.

Ok, the decision making of AIs is a terget for potential tweaks, but clearly the system itself is fine as is. I'm looking at both SP and MP here and it works well.

And regarding AI decisions, I'm still not sure tweaking is that needed. I'm not sure you should be able to come out of massive wars that easily, especially on high difficulty levels.

 

[shaglio]

I have openly tried to ignore all alliances in Civ 7.

The reason for that is that the only time I ever get an alliance request is when the AI wants to attack someone else, and declares war exactly the next turn. It is so obvious what is happening when you get a request that the only thing to do is turn them down lest you want to get into a war with someone else straight away

Same. I always ignore Alliances when the AI requests them because the second I accept one, I immediately get drawn into a war I’m not interested in being a part of.