Defensive pacts and wars

[Miloe]

Im having a slight issue with the single player game mechanics since it feels to me that its almost impossible to sign defencive pacts with other civs. I've been playing FFH several weeks now with multitude of game settings and i have never been able to even sign a defensive pact not to mention permanent alliance with another civ.

I usually play with noble difficulty and normal map size, sometimes I use aggressive AI's, sometimes passive and I always get the same result: "We just dont like you enough.". They say that even if I have done everything to my power to please the civ and theres not single minus point to our relationship.

Another issue im having is that its also impossible for me to lure another civ into war with me if im under attack. I have never been able to do it and i get the same reply as above or sometimes "We would have nothing to gain." which I understand. But the part what I dont understand is if a hostile civ is rampaging my cities why suddenly no one likes me enough to help even if I would offer them all of my techs.

Anyone else having these same issues? It feels like im missing half of the strategy in the game since im unable to manipulate the civs.

Thanks for reading

 

[poliorcet_13]

I think we have the same issue.
Moreover the AI never ask for defensive pact, nor with player, nor with AI (even if it could save its civ against an awesome opponent at its border).

The only way to be allied with AI is to wait for help request when the AI is already at war.

 

[coko]

Well, I've managed to get Defensive Pact's lately by simply being the same Religion as the player, and joining them in a war against someone else, where I doubt I'll fight that person. Then they start to be more agreeable. But I do agree, it would be nice if they asked for it sometimes, or actually agreed to fight a war with you!

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Heh, sounds like the opposite of the problem Sarisin was having in Light.

 

[eekhoorn]

I never have a problem with signing defensive pacts, at least as long as you share a religion. Without a common religion it is somewhat harder, but that makes sense to me

Permanent alliances are a lot harder (btw, don't forget you have to enable them at the custom game screen), but definitely possible. You just have to pick a civ you like, and give them anything they ask for. Shared religion and alignment are usually a must-have
Although I like the idea of permanent alliance, I usually play without since the AI sucks at signing them, and I don't want to handicap them even more.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I would like it if you added an alliance level just between these two. It would be just like a permanent alliance, only not necessarily permanent. The Vassalage in Warlords is kinda close to this, and really the only reason to play it.

Actually, it might be better the alliances as they are could just be canceled by either player (causing a war if the other disagrees) and perhaps if you could have more than one. A higher level would then be added: an Act of Union. This would make 2 civilizations into one one with the attributes of both, which both players would control equally.

One awesome addition to Civ IV would be Multi-lateral bargaining.

Now if only someone could actually find a way to program these changes...

 

[Sureshot]

would be nice if Permanent Alliances could include more than 2 civs

 

[Nimai_R]

What'd be really cool is colletion(dictionary won't help me with spelling >< So the act where a bunch of people unite vs a foe) But I doubt how doable it'd be. But it'd be interesting all good unite vs a powerful evil foe, etc, probably erupt huge wars. Good fun. Course it'd be way to complicated to make, for now at least.

 

[wig]

would be nice if Permanent Alliances could include more than 2 civs

How about something like this?

Glorious Alliance
National Wonder, Good Civs only, Requires Armageddon Counter over 70
Creates a permanent alliance with any other Civilization that builds the Alliance.

You could have an Unholy alliance as well, though it would probably have different mechanics. You could give neutral civs an either/or option between the two, and have the whole system toggle on and off with the Enable Permanent Alliances setup choice.

 

[Sureshot]

ya, thatd be cool, neutrals could have their own rather then side with good or evil tho

afterall, neutrals are neutral because they choose the non-good/non-evil side heh

 

[wig]

afterall, neutrals are neutral because they choose the non-good/non-evil side heh

I thought they were neutral because they didn't choose sides

A neutral alliance seems a little absurd, unless it's in support an anti-religious, reject-the-false-gods Luonnotar agenda like Chandrasekhar mentions in the victory conditions thread.

 

[Nimai_R]

Would it auto-declare war on all evil though? Maybe if there's 2 people in it, or if the counter gets to say 80 or 90 you do.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Perhaps, if the alliance wonders were added, it should not depend on the civ's current alignment, but would change the alignment. A good civ could choose to betray its principles and become a force of darkness.

I like having three different grand alliances, but I guess the neutral one would make more sense if it were Luonnatar-like. Perhaps the original neutral alliance wonder could only be built by Cassiel, or someone with enough Altars. However, followers of the Leaves and Kilmorph worship gods who support the compact, so it t would make sense if they could join.

It might also be better if these were rituals, not wonders, so they could not be captured.

 

[Celeborn]

Well... In a way, is this not what the Patriach does currently?

I mean, sure, it's based on religion and not alignment, but there is something fun about having half the world go to war at the single click of a button...


Holy War... Messy bussiness.

 

[Nimai_R]

Maybe it should just be a ritual that makes all good declare war against all evil. Or maybe, instead of being even a wonder, at like 70-80 of the AClock it just automatically happens.

 

[Sarisin]

Heh, sounds like the opposite of the problem Sarisin was having in Light.

You're right, and I am still having it in Light. I guess I am probably the only guy on the forum still playing a Light game and a Fire game. I just love being able to play a Marathon, Raging Barb/Agg AI game on a huge map and have not been able to do so in Fire. Putting out fires/stopping hell-spread is another thing....

But, in my Fire games I haven't noticed all those blue lines signifying Defensive Pacts like I did in Light and previous versions. Even with Agg AI wars were rare in Light and when the AI civs defensive pacted-up, you didn't dare declare war on one civ unless you were prepared to fight several. So, I think this is an improvement in Fire IMO.

In Fire I have noticed if you use the Agg AI setting you get plenty of wars - mostly declared on you!

Sigh, I just wish I could get a Fire game going with Marathon/Raging Barbs....

 

[poliorcet_13]

But, in my Fire games I haven't noticed all those blue lines signifying Defensive Pacts like I did in Light and previous versions. Even with Agg AI wars were rare in Light and when the AI civs defensive pacted-up, you didn't dare declare war on one civ unless you were prepared to fight several. So, I think this is an improvement in Fire IMO.

In Fire I have noticed if you use the Agg AI setting you get plenty of wars - mostly declared on you!

Fire will be greatly improved if Defensive Pacts are possible.

As example, as Malakim/Leaves/Good, it wasn't possible to sign a defensive pact with Frodo/Leaves/Good despite a +27 diplo modifier.

But in an other hand, I have enjoyed the increased of wars in Fire (Light was too quiet).

 

[Miloe]

well today it happened, i signed my first defensive pact (neutral/neutral), and ended up having permanent alliance! wohoo

it didnt even matter that all the other civs declared war on us (including the puny vampire nation with one city)

my fiance was Morgoth, i wonder if it makes any difference that he isnt playable by default that made him sign a pact with me.

 

[Rankel]

"Another issue im having is that its also impossible for me to lure another civ into war with me if im under attack. I have never been able to do it and i get the same reply as above or sometimes "We would have nothing to gain." which I understand. But the part what I dont understand is if a hostile civ is rampaging my cities why suddenly no one likes me enough to help even if I would offer them all of my techs."

I agree. There's definitely a change. Since 0.21 I have NEVER (been trying for 20 game sessions) managed to get another Civ to support a war. This used to be a way out of total annihilation (ie. beeing attacked by crossbowmen and defending with warriors) even if it was costly. What has happened Kael?

 

[kenken244]

i think that with a permanent allience might be able to acess eachothers UUs or something