Defensive Pacts? Bug?

[RD-BH]

I've only ever signed a defensive pact twice.
In both instances the AI I signed with DoW'd me the following turn.
There is no chance of me ever signing one again.

 

[standingwolf]

5 minutes ago I would have agreed, then I thought what if a DoF mattered ? If so then what would Germany in OP think about the value of a DoF with you ? Yes you kept your word on the DP, but a DoF seems to have no value to you. You'll enter into a DoF when you don't really mean it.

that's a reasonable point, except that it hinges on who declared war on whom. if the DP is public knowledge, then the third party knows they're going to trigger war with two nations by attacking one. the flaw in the way it's currently set up is that the person who honours the DP is treated as if they're just as bad as a random aggressor, and as if they violated the DoF for no reason. if i see a trap in front of me and i choose to step into it, i can hardly criticise the trap.

 

[Socratatus]

Wow, I'm so glad for threads like this! Thanks guys. So to recap what I got out of it:

1) Not a bug: When you DOW an ex-friend because of a DP obligation, it makes sense that other civs get mad at you. You weren't wise in choosing your commitments.

It`s this. I only ever enter into a defensive pact if it suits me personally, if I can risk it or if I`m afraid a bigger enemy is about to start war with me. Always check what your Civ you want a pact with is doing with other Civs, whom they are at war with, or denouncing, etc.

A defensive pact means that YOU share the responsibility of any other Civ you have that pact when it starts war. If YOU start a war the CIV also has to immediately go to war besides you and share the blame. This is the agreement.

It makes total sense that if you immediately co-join a war as part of a defensive pact that someone else started then everyone sees you as the war monger too, or at the very least, helping the war . It doesn`t matter that you didn`t actually want the war. You still joined in that war right from the start, by association you are as guilty and that`s how the rest of the world sees it in Civ 5 and reality even.

The AI actually seems to understand this. I was in a constant war with Washington on and off. In a rare moment of peace, I noticed that France was right next to Washington but at peace, so i asked France for a defensive pact, knowing my next war with Washington would bring next door neighbour Napoleon in. Napoleon seemed to know this, refusing all my bribes to get that defensive pact, and wise he was to as well, for he really couldn`t afford a war with washington.

So be very, very careful whom you have a defensive pact with.

 

[standingwolf]

A defensive pact means that YOU share the responsibility of any other Civ you have that pact when it starts war. If YOU start a war the CIV also has to immediately go to war besides you and share the blame. This is the agreement.

if two civs have a DP and one declares war on someone else, the DP is nullified. at least that's what it says in the civilopedia, and that's also how it worked in civ 4. a defensive pact is an agreement that if one civ is attacked, the other will come to their aid. that seems to me to be fundamentally different from launching an aggressive war.

 

[whyidie]

that's a reasonable point, except that it hinges on who declared war on whom. if the DP is public knowledge, then the third party knows they're going to trigger war with two nations by attacking one. the flaw in the way it's currently set up is that the person who honours the DP is treated as if they're just as bad as a random aggressor, and as if they violated the DoF for no reason. if i see a trap in front of me and i choose to step into it, i can hardly criticise the trap.

But you created a trap for yourself as well as for the warring civ, so this should apply to the player as well.

 

[whyidie]

if two civs have a DP and one declares war on someone else, the DP is nullified. at least that's what it says in the civilopedia, and that's also how it worked in civ 4. a defensive pact is an agreement that if one civ is attacked, the other will come to their aid. that seems to me to be fundamentally different from launching an aggressive war.

With no DoF involved, I agree DP war should be treated lightly.

 

[adsin15]

The only time I ever sign DP is when there is a large enemy civ between myself and the civ I am signing the pact with.

I want the AI to know it will be fighting a two front war if it attacks me. Other than that pacts are stupid and useless.

 

[adsin15]

I used to have the same problem with Research Agreements.

Every time I'd sign one the AI would declare war on me (nullifying the agreement and pissing away the gold) 1 turn before the agreement would be fullfilled. I stopped signing ALL research agreements actually untill G&K came out and it seems to be fixed now.

 

[Browd]

I used to have the same problem with Research Agreements.

Every time I'd sign one the AI would declare war on me (nullifying the agreement and pissing away the gold) 1 turn before the agreement would be fullfilled. I stopped signing ALL research agreements actually untill G&K came out and it seems to be fixed now.

Actually, in my recent GOTM game, Napoleon DOWed me 4 turns before our RA was due to mature -- very irritating. First time that's happened to me in G&K, but it won't stop me from doing RAs.

 

[standingwolf]

I want the AI to know it will be fighting a two front war if it attacks me.

so this is exactly my question. in civ 4 you signed defensive pacts as a deterrent, but do they still function in that way in civ 5? are DPs public knowledge? i realized i've never noticed two AIs signing one, and in the F4 screen under world politics it did not indicate that i had signed one with ethiopia. in fact, other than going to talk to ethiopia and checking if "defensive pact" was greyed out, i'm not sure how *i* would have known that my DP with them was still in effect.

this really should be made clear because a secret promise to declare war is quite a different animal from a public defensive pact.

 

[whyidie]

Don't know if its public or not, but I have had hostile Civs wait until it expired (went un-noticed on my part) before declaring.

 

[sir_kris]

It absolutely IS a bug. The Civ devs never want to admit that anything is a bug, no matter how blatantly obvious it is. They'll just counter with the "you're trying to make the game something it's not" straw-man.

A defensive pact isn't about declaring war on someone who attacked your friend. It's about declaring to the world, "If you declare war on this guy, then you're also declaring war on me." That's how it's always been.

So if another civ attacks someone that they know I have a defensive pact with, the game should treat it as though they're declaring war on me as well, not the other way around. This is a bug that hurts the realism of the game and makes defensive pacts more trouble than they're worth. Besides, whenever someone attacks me while I have a defensive pact, my AI "allies" declare war but never bother to send any units/etc to aid me, anyway, so it's basically a worthless feature no matter how you look at it.

 

[crawf0rd]

The only change the devs need to make is England should be declaring war on both Sweden and you, not England DOW'ing Sweden and you DOW'ing England.

 

[Tachii]

The only change the devs need to make is England should be declaring war on both Sweden and you, not England DOW'ing Sweden and you DOW'ing England.

I agree with this. You suffer a diplo hit as a warmonger (to your very own allies) for agreeing to the outcome of a "defensive" pact? I'm sad. >: Though if you get a huge diplo bonus to the civ you entered the defensive pact with I'd take that as well. A peaceful civ would extend their relationship with their friends even more by signing defensive pacts with them and letting an aggro civ increase your friendship ties (even if they won't actually go near that guy and clean his troops)

 

[fuzzatron717]

Well actually have had opposite my best example is when I was playing Byzantium and my ally the netherlands was attacked by Ethiopia I had DP and a DoF I declared war on Ethiopia and the netherlands were happy it gave me we are at war with the same nation diplo modifier. The Maya were allied with Ethiopia and declared war on me and the netherlands we were victorius for me and the netherlands. I white peaced with both the netherlands got a ethiopian city.

 

[Masadon]

I have a question i havent been able to find the answer too. If you have a DP with a civ, is there a chance that the civ. you have the DP with will declare war on you?

 

[I was NC]

The discussion of DPs/DoFs being smart strategy or not is entirely beside the point (good and interesting topics, just irrelevant here). They are available options in the game and should work properly.

The question on this thread is whether they do. (I'll leave to others the technical definition of "bug".) IMO the answer is no, the outcome is flawed. Players are not given the option to violate the pact and avoid going to war against a friend. We are penalized for an automatic outcome. To my knowledge there is no other similar mechanism where a diplomatic negative applies without first making a choice. See, e.g., CS pledge to protect or forgiveness for spying.

To work like other aspects of the game we should have to decide between the pact and friendship. I'd say not complying with the former ought to be a huge black mark with all AIs, while the latter would be just for the friend and maybe its allies.

That may be too much to ask for, so in the alternative there should just be no penalty for honoring the pact. The friend made a choice to attack and in so doing brought on the DoW. Otherwise the diplo hit is effectively for not being able to predict future interactions between AIs. Anyone who can do that should already be working for Firaxis.

 

[Polisurgist]

i just had this happen to me too, and i think it's a bit unfair to accuse players of whining because the game isn't the way they want it to be. this was my first DP and so how was i know the logic behind it would be so stupid?

If this happens to you once and you ask what's going on, you aren't whining. If you're a veteran player, know how the game works and still keep complaining, then you're whining.

A defensive pact is a pact to go to war if someone else attacks your partner. It may force you to go to war with your friend. That's bad for you, but it's what you bought into when you signed the defensive pact.

There isn't a way out of a warmonger penalty; if you're declaring war everywhere and wondering why people don't like you, you're either inexperienced (acceptable) or should probably be playing a different game.

 

[Polisurgist]

We are penalized for an automatic outcome.

It is in no way automatic. You did not automatically sign the defensive pact.

I might think it's horseass that I can't sell someone a luxury, take the money and then choose not to give them the resource, but that doesn't mean the game is cheating me.

 

[Browd]

I could not agree more (and for these reasons I never use DPs), but I must correct you on one key point: the technical term is "horse hockey" (i.e., the principal "by-product" of the portion of the equine anatomy you referenced).