Defensive Pacts don't impact making peace

Should defensive pact impact making a peace?

  • Yes, it should, but currently it's a bug

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    16

CppMaster

Emperor
Joined
Feb 13, 2018
Messages
1,487
Location
Poland
I've declared a war against Ottoman that had a defensive pact with Zulu, so I were warring both of them. However, after some time I made peace with Zulu and focused only on Ottomans, despite the fact that they still had a defensive pact. It's pretty weird to me, but maybe it's indented? Discuss.
 

caudheur

Chieftain
Joined
Aug 26, 2021
Messages
9
I think it's acceptable for an ally fighting along your side because of a defensive pact to look for peace, even if it leaves you alone. They did their 10 turns "part".
Also, preventing allies from peace just because of a defensive pact could be exploited: if you never accept peace then you bring the whole world in a perpetual war because of you.
Personally I like it the way it currently is.
 

CppMaster

Emperor
Joined
Feb 13, 2018
Messages
1,487
Location
Poland
I think it's acceptable for an ally fighting along your side because of a defensive pact to look for peace, even if it leaves you alone. They did their 10 turns "part".
Also, preventing allies from peace just because of a defensive pact could be exploited: if you never accept peace then you bring the whole world in a perpetual war because of you.
Personally I like it the way it currently is.
Ok, I forgot that defensive pact is just for 10 turns. It makes sense in that case, thank you
 

Recursive

Already Looping
Moderator
Joined
Dec 19, 2017
Messages
3,073
Ok, I forgot that defensive pact is just for 10 turns. It makes sense in that case, thank you

10 turns is the minimum duration of a war, any war (for the AI). There is no minimum length for a Defensive Pact, war simply needs to be declared. Which now that I think of it is exploitable in the case of humans...

Er, don't think you should add "it's currently a bug" as a vote option. You'd need knowledge of the code to know if something is a bug. :)

Not planning on changing this because it would be exploitable, as mentioned above. You can't declare war on someone if you have a peace treaty with one of their DPs, though, so there's that utility.
 

CppMaster

Emperor
Joined
Feb 13, 2018
Messages
1,487
Location
Poland
Er, don't think you should add "it's currently a bug" as a vote option. You'd need knowledge of the code to know if something is a bug. :)
That vote option is precisely for developers, like you :)

But yeah, you're right about exploiting
 

looorg

King
Joined
Dec 22, 2010
Messages
640
Not planning on changing this because it would be exploitable, as mentioned above. You can't declare war on someone if you have a peace treaty with one of their DPs, though, so there's that utility.
That said it's not without problems in the current way either. Such as you can't declare war on someone when that someone is in a defensive pact with someone else that you are currently in a peace deal with. That sort of thing also has a weird impact. If anything I think you should be able to declare on the first someone and it would just break the peace deal with the second someone. That said I guess that is exploitable to in some regard and there would probably be never ending eternal wars so perhaps it's best not to poke it or think to much about it.
That said what you currently do is to declare on your next target before you peace out with your current wars, that way you don't trigger any deals or get prevented from starting the wars you want to be in, so you get around it that way. So you sort of get around those things, since you know the one you peace out with won't be able to declare on you for X turns again. Then when that deal runs out you just do it again but the other way around so you don't have to be in a two-front war more then once to start the chain off.
 
Top Bottom