stealth_nsk
Deity
Yes, AI usually calls human player for alliance when they are already in war. That's why I try to initiate alliances myself where possible and needed.
Alliances need to be fixed or modded
- Thread starter Sly1foxy
- Start date
McSpank01
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2016
- Messages
- 228
I think the issue that has happened in many of my games is this is exactly what I was attempting to do. I assumed at some point because I had built up good relations with nations who were also miles away from me with no reason to get into a war with me, I was reasonably safe. The problem is that the AI can pull other civs into an alliance and get them to declare war with a flick of the wrist, with no penalty. There are plenty of other games out there with different alliance systems that lead to more interesting, complex and organic feeling decision making. Even something as basic as total war has defensive and military alliances. CK3 has a system where players need to spend prestige to bring an ally into a war if its offensive, but not if it's defensive.
I dunno, this is an issue that is bigger than some AI tweaks. The system is dumb and clumsy and that in of itself leads to dumb and clumsy AI decision making.
Actually I've found that there seems to be less of a relationship penalty if I always accept the alliance and then immediately opt out of the war. There seems to be less of a relationship penalty then if you outright reject the alliance to begin with.
standingwolf
Chieftain
i agree with the OP that the alliance system is fantastically broken, and whereas i usually tend to pursue alliances in other games, in civ 7 i stay as far from them as i can.
if they split alliances into defensive pacts (you only go to war if your ally is attacked) and full alliances (you join in wars your ally starts), that would be fine. but having only the latter as an option means the other civ is essentially making your foreign policy decisions for you. whoever has the itchiest trigger finger calls all the shots.
i agree with sly1foxy that the AIs will ALWAYS declare war if their ally does. i have never seen an exception to this. i've also had the OP's experience of thinking i had a great relationship with so-and-so only to have them attack me because they also had a good relationship with someone who hated me. as others have said, it would make sense if the AI would at least cancel an alliance if they're asked to go to war with someone they're willing to enter an alliance with, but this never happens. in real life, nations would not be so quick to torpedo centuries of diplomacy.
what all this tends to result in is blocks of civs that are just endlessly going to war with each other, because it only takes one of them to pull the trigger for the entire alliance network to be activated. i've seen this happen across ages. in my last game, both continents were locked in an endless cycle of continent-wide wars, excepting only me because i kept refusing alliances.
as for the penalty, if you turn down an alliance it's -30, and if you cancel an alliance it's -30, so there's no graceful way to avoid making someone who likes you dislike you.
all this makes sense only if you're trying to force everyone into eternal wars. it also scuttles any nuanced diplomacy because the AIs will tend to form alliances and this will mean they either love you or hate you depending on whether you join their wars or not.
if they split alliances into defensive pacts (you only go to war if your ally is attacked) and full alliances (you join in wars your ally starts), that would be fine. but having only the latter as an option means the other civ is essentially making your foreign policy decisions for you. whoever has the itchiest trigger finger calls all the shots.
i agree with sly1foxy that the AIs will ALWAYS declare war if their ally does. i have never seen an exception to this. i've also had the OP's experience of thinking i had a great relationship with so-and-so only to have them attack me because they also had a good relationship with someone who hated me. as others have said, it would make sense if the AI would at least cancel an alliance if they're asked to go to war with someone they're willing to enter an alliance with, but this never happens. in real life, nations would not be so quick to torpedo centuries of diplomacy.
what all this tends to result in is blocks of civs that are just endlessly going to war with each other, because it only takes one of them to pull the trigger for the entire alliance network to be activated. i've seen this happen across ages. in my last game, both continents were locked in an endless cycle of continent-wide wars, excepting only me because i kept refusing alliances.
as for the penalty, if you turn down an alliance it's -30, and if you cancel an alliance it's -30, so there's no graceful way to avoid making someone who likes you dislike you.
all this makes sense only if you're trying to force everyone into eternal wars. it also scuttles any nuanced diplomacy because the AIs will tend to form alliances and this will mean they either love you or hate you depending on whether you join their wars or not.
Brutus2
King
Agreed. It feels bad when playing a leader that get benefits from being in an Alliance because I never accept them since the AI only asks for Alliance when they are at war. Also, you get a penalty for not accepting the Alliance offer and if you accept, you get a penalty for not joining their war so basically every time the AI asks for an Alliance, I'm getting a penalty no matter what I choose.
Changing the penalty should be enough
Decline Alliance: -10 (should retain Open Borders and other Agreements…and no Alliance requests for 10? turns)
Break Alliance (decline shared War): -40
As long as it’s understood Alliances are intended for shared War that should make it OK.
Last edited:
The Economy
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2012
- Messages
- 128
I like how Stellaris does it (at least I think it's Stellaris that I'm thinking of).
When in an alliance with other civs (can be multiple), an alliance war can only start after a majority vote. It's also a defensive pact, of course.
It's a lot of fun for RP gameplay. Civ 7's current diplo implementation is far too simplistic and 'videogamey'.
When in an alliance with other civs (can be multiple), an alliance war can only start after a majority vote. It's also a defensive pact, of course.
It's a lot of fun for RP gameplay. Civ 7's current diplo implementation is far too simplistic and 'videogamey'.
GeneralZift
Professional
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2019
- Messages
- 1,136
I don't know if anyone can clue me in on how often this happens in reality, but do nations often break vows, defence treaties, open borders, alliances on a whim to get out of the responsibility or do they usually stick to their word?
For gameplay reasons in Civ you're usually forced to stick to your word, but I wonder if this is always true in real life. And would the game be more interesting if you could pay influence to go back on something for example?
For gameplay reasons in Civ you're usually forced to stick to your word, but I wonder if this is always true in real life. And would the game be more interesting if you could pay influence to go back on something for example?
Well in Civ7 you can go back..for a relationship penalty
TheMarshmallowBear
Benelovent Chieftain of the Ursu Kingdom
I feel like the system could be solved another way.
Instead of being forced to Join the War or Break the Alliance, have the ability to "Support" it, at the cost of diplo relationship hit, just like Supporting Wars actually does.
Maybe it allows allies to get a free "Support", you don't join the war, but you support it, (sort of Aid), and it still costs a diplo hit with the other leader that you didn't support.
One thing I hate about this whole alliance thing is the fact that joining the war tanks the relationship with the other leader completely.
I think having the war forced is the idea…Alliances shouldn’t allow partial support if they are going to be significant.
But because of that they should be more significant.
Declining an Alliance should only have small relationship penalty (and not disrupt existing relationships)…to allow peaceful play
Breaking an Alliance by not joining a war should have a big relationship penalty
Accepting an Alliance should have a small relationship bonus with the ally…
but it should also have a penalty with all other players depending on their relationship with your ally
Friendly with Ally: -5 with You
Neutral with Ally: -15 with You
Unfriendly with Ally: -30 with You
Hostile with Ally: -60 with You
Because it’s essentially a predeclaration of war
If you can see those results you can probably guess what war the Alliance is preparing for.
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
It would complicate matters considerably, but perhaps the answer is to separate Agreements from Actions in their consequences.
Do instead of taking a major relationship/diplomatic hit from joining a war against Civ X, that hit would only happen if you actually committed an act of war against that Civ or its units - attack a civilian or military unit, trade route or settlement, for instance. 'Merely" declaring war without any warlike actions would not affect basic relations - everybody knows diplomacy sometimes requires the Form of a war rather than the Substance of a war, and will judge you accordingly.
Of course, the other side of this would be the "All Aid Short of War" provision, in which you can gift Gold or Influence to a party at War or provide Privateers of some kind to raid their enemy's trade routes or even gift them a unit or two (I'm reading Atkinson's second book of his American Revolution trilogy, and all those things basically happened early in the war between France and the colonies: it makes a nice 'model' for an in-game mechanic)
This description reminds me of how MPP (Mutual Protection Pacts) worked in Civ3.
I might have an MPP with CivA, but it wouldn't be triggered until CivB actually attacked CivA inside their borders. If CivB was repelling CivA's invastion,and the war took place in CivB's territory, the MPP would not trigger.
FWIW, I have done both of these things: decline an AI leader's invitation to an alliance, and declined to support an ally while they were at war. I have not noticed huge downsides to either action. If I'm still doing endeavors with a leader, they will stay friendly or neutral even if I don't stay in the alliance.
standingwolf
Chieftain
i like this idea. this is precisely how diplomatic capital is used in real life. it would presumably be expensive, but it should be an option.
i also like the idea that declining an alliance takes a small hit (simply saying "i'm not interested"), while opting out of a war takes a much larger hit (betraying the whole purpose of the alliance).
i think if the sole purpose of an alliance is war support then they should be called something else, like a "military pact." an "alliance" should have a variety of functions and should make as much sense in peacetime as in war.
I like the idea of a lesser “alliance”
Say..
-massive penalties for declaring war on ally
-reduced penalties for declaring war on someone at surprise war with your ally
-Endeavors & War support reduced cost or bonus effect
That way Alliances can be useful for peace and mildly useful for war… but the Military Pact would be focused on war (work like current Alliance)….you could have either one with or without the other.
Similar threads
