Defensive Pact and DoW's

[steveg700]

1) Don't sign DP unless you really mean it. A DP means commitment (at least a diplomatic commitment) so if you are not ready to for that commitment, don't sign one. There are other threads about this on this (and other) forum, where this is explained.

2) Don't sign DoF unless you really mean it, if you think that this AI can/must be dealt with in a near future or another better "friend" will deal with that AI, don't sign a DoF.

If you try to befriend the entire world, you probably end up being the one without a chair when the music stops. There are a lot of conflicts in the world so it is usually better to pick a side and try to use that side to your advantage.

I honestly wouldn't consider it broken. It's a question of commitment, and there's potential consquences to the commitment. That's how World War 1 started, even. Or the 7 years war.

The two most correct posts in this thread.

Players need to concede their sense of entitlement. Maintaining good relationships with one civ may well mean having to accept bad relationships with other civ's. The fact that civs form cliques is not a bug, it's a feature.

Having said that, certainly a DoW on an unremitting warmonger should not incur a diplo hit, regardless of whether there was a defensive pact or not. Indeed, if it was a sufficiently warlike civ, the other AI civ's shouldn't mind it getting wiped off the map.

 

[troublmaker]

I wish I could sign defensive pact. No one wants to be my ally! Does that make me a bad person?

 

[steveg700]

Probably just means you're weak and other civ's don't want to have a pact with a likely victim.

Indeed, I think folks have largely missed the most useful function of defensive pacts--namely, not to be defended, but to be the defender. This can help keep weak but useful civ's alive.

 

[Browd]

I wish I could sign defensive pact. No one wants to be my ally! Does that make me a bad person?

Yes?

 

[Walter R]

The defensive pact mandates only the gesture of declaration of war, which itself means little - a passive "war" without any hostilities fulfills the pact just fine, and is the sensible way to react when dragged into a war one would want no part of.

I don't get involved with defensive pacts, but I had to comment on this clarification - it's so true! In a recent game I intended to DOW Hiawatha and bribed GK to DOW him first - he duly did but did nothing else! Taught me a valuable lesson. It didn't alter the game outcome thankfully.

 

[Danielion]

WWI started with Defensive Pacts, so it somehow makes sense people hate you once the world's on fire. Personally I use defensive pacts when I see an AI isn't getting along with my archenemy and that AI is a neighbour of that same enemy.

 

[Socratatus]

Probably just means you're weak and other civ's don't want to have a pact with a likely victim.

Indeed, I think folks have largely missed the most useful function of defensive pacts--namely, not to be defended, but to be the defender. This can help keep weak but useful civ's alive.

I was very weak in one game and the Vikings started planning to attack me (so my spy said). I knew I wasn`t ready for any kind of war so signed a Defense Pact with both Egypt and the Dutch, who were quite strong. Didn`t have any more trouble from the Vikings after that.

Of course signing defensive pacts can be a two-edged sword, but I considered it was better to get dragged into a war with a strong ally than being attacked alone by a strong enemy.

There are several ways to use a defensive pact. The beauty of it is making that judgement call - or wisdom.

 

[Zibby]

I've just had a similar experience, except this time in my benefit.

Saw that Portugal was moving their fleet towards me, signed two DPs with allies, and a few turns later, Portugal declares war on me, and my two allies declare war on them - all good so far.

However, my allies are seen as backstabbers by the rest of the world. Whilst this doesn't impact me, I still don't think it should be the correct treatment by the game.

To take it back to the WWI example, I don't think anyone thought England were backstabbers for declaring war on Germany after the invasion of Belgium, despite the fact that both countries had a long (although somewhat complicated) history of friendship

 

[DemonMaster]

I've just had a similar experience, except this time in my benefit.

Saw that Portugal was moving their fleet towards me, signed two DPs with allies, and a few turns later, Portugal declares war on me, and my two allies declare war on them - all good so far.

However, my allies are seen as backstabbers by the rest of the world. Whilst this doesn't impact me, I still don't think it should be the correct treatment by the game.

To take it back to the WWI example, I don't think anyone thought England were backstabbers for declaring war on Germany after the invasion of Belgium, despite the fact that both countries had a long (although somewhat complicated) history of friendship

If your allies had a DoF with Portugal then they are Backstabbers. The AI doesn't handle this very well. A human could foresee this and would probably not have sign a DP (or shouldn't).
Regarding England and pre-WW1. England had good relationships with Prussia, not so much with Germany. Germany wanted friendship, and more (to counter Russia-French dual alliance), not Britain (they refused).

 

[Polisurgist]

To take it back to the WWI example, I don't think anyone thought England were backstabbers for declaring war on Germany after the invasion of Belgium, despite the fact that both countries had a long (although somewhat complicated) history of friendship

They had a long history, but the relationship between Germany and the UK at the start of WWI would not be the equivalent of a Declaration of Friendship. The US/UK relationship for the past century or so, I'd consider a DoF, and if we had, say, declared war on the UK in response to the Falklands incident, then yes, I think most of the world would consider us backstabbers, even if they disapproved of the UK's actions.

This is just a hypothetical, but I think it's a more apt description of what a DoF actually means.

 

[Strategist83]

Defensive Pacts are a complete joke in Civ V and your thread only exemplifies this. This is another area of the AI where Firaxis did half the job and called it a day in this so-called million dollar AAA title.

The ONLY condition for an AI to accept a DP is to have a Declaration of Friendship, NO other factors (such as whether a DP is even useful to the AI in the first place, ie. the AI will still gladly sign the pact with you if you are hated by the whole world and will most likely be attacked and have no army with which you could aid the AI if it were attacked). This is a general problem with the AI which will also gladly buy your luxuries and strategics even if it doesn't need them and is pressed for gold, but since a DP is a bigger commitment it can really get the AI in trouble. It isn't even surprising that they didn't bother programming DPs to not trigger warmonger hate when the pact activates; the programming is super sloppy in this area.