Defensive Pact

[GoreBush]

Why cant i DOW some civilization while they have Defensive Pact with some third civilization i have peace treaty with? One time they have pact with them, second time they pacted with another civ i have war recently and peaced treaty now.

Lose all my technological timings, war preparations, surprise effect and their temporarily difficulties related with their another wars waiting all this peacy treaties gone. BUT they can DOW me all this time and DO this whenever i DOWed by some 4th civilization.

Surrounded by group of hostile civilizations and have wars constantly from all sides. And it is ok. Not ok is that i cant even use my temporarily advantages against this bastards league and theirs temporarily weakness because of this situation with Defensive Pacts.

It is unfair and counterintuitive. And works differently comparing with Paradox Europa Universalis which have pretty nice diplomatic system i think.

 

[Recursive]

Why cant i DOW some civilization while they have Defensive Pact with some third civilization i have peacy treaty with? One time they have pact with them, second time they pacted with another civ i have war recently and peaced treaty now.

The reason why is because otherwise, you could bypass a Peace Treaty by declaring war on someone's Defensive Pact.

There are three options here, and all of them have a downside (unless you have a better suggestion):
1) Attacking civs cannot attack a civ if they have a Peace Treaty with one of their Defensive Pacts (current)
2) Civs who have signed a Peace Treaty cannot come to defend their ally in a Defensive Pact (makes Defensive Pacts less valuable, and players would get frustrated by the lack of transparency when their ally doesn't join them)
3) Allow Peace Treaties to be bypassable (exploitable, especially if Gold or Cities were surrendered)

Lose all my technological timings, war preparations, surprise effect and their temporarily difficulties related with their another wars waiting all this peacy treaties gone. BUT they can DOW me all this time and DO this when i DOWed by some 4th civilization.

The idea is that you have to be careful about signing Peace Treaties because signing them at the wrong time can screw you over by forcing you to wait if you want to attack that civ's allies. This is an intended mechanic.

If you're getting attacked by so many civs, you probably don't have a strong enough military and/or are not investing enough effort into diplomacy.

And works differently comparing with Paradox Europa Universalis which have pretty nice diplomatic system i think.

Apples and oranges. They are entirely different games.

 

[GoreBush]

The idea is that you have to be careful about signing Peace Treaties because signing them at the wrong time can screw you over by forcing you to wait if you want to attack that civ's allies. This is an intended mechanic.

If you're getting attacked by so many civs, you probably don't have a strong enough military and/or are not investing enough effort into diplomacy.

Situation leads to two scenarios. In first i signing treaty as fast as possible - early treaty, early cooldown expiration, early war with their ally which is your main goal. It is delay and wasting time anyway. Second is delaying treaty to time i can parallel DOW my main foe again and THEN signed treaty with their ally. Wondering can i bear War Weariness all this time. Feel like one go high rapidly after certain wartime and cant anything do with this except signing a peace even no unit lost.

 

[CppMaster]

There are three options here, and all of them have a downside (unless you have a better suggestion):
1) Attacking civs cannot attack a civ if they have a Peace Treaty with one of their Defensive Pacts (current)
2) Civs who have signed a Peace Treaty cannot come to defend their ally in a Defensive Pact (makes Defensive Pacts less valuable, and players would get frustrated by the lack of transparency when their ally doesn't join them)
3) Allow Peace Treaties to be bypassable (exploitable, especially if Gold or Cities were surrendered)

I like the 2nd the most. Defensive pacts doesn't inherently cost anything, except if AI wants sth additional to the deal. In that case, AI could just value it less in trade.

 

[Tekamthi]

I like number two as well.

Alternatively number three with some kind of option at outbreak of war for the pact ally to choose whether they defend or break their pact, perhaps with diplo malus with the pact members for the latter option if selected.

 

[stii]

Paradox's EU both has a more complicated system and different issues. I'm not sure it is really better.

A lot of the game is trying to work out how to declare war on someone in EU without dragging too many allies in. Which leads to lots of fake wars.