Fake Wars

[tdy99]

I love when a war erupts and the very next turn both sides demand that I cancel agreements with the other. The very next turn after that both sides request that I join the war on their side. In the end, their war that had nothing to do with me ends up costing me -3 or -4 relationship with both sides after multiple refusals to declare for either side.

 

[Iranon]

I don't see anything to complain about - an "if they're not with us, they're against us" mentality isn't entirely unrealistic. We shouldn't feel entitled to AIs playing nice - after all, nobody forces us to do so.

It'd be nice if we had another option though: declare neutrality. Nobody will bother you to join their wars, but when you declare war you take a hefty diplomacy hit with everyone.

 

[capnvonbaron]

^^ not a bad idea but technically you'd have to stop trading with people at war too wouldn't you?

 

[damerell]

^^ not a bad idea but technically you'd have to stop trading with people at war too wouldn't you?

That depends. For example, during the Napoleonic Wars the USA traded relatively freely with both sides, a source of some tension for... trading with people's worst enemies. (Can a Civ blockade shut down such trade? Hm.)

 

[DroopyTofu]

This could be solved if the human had the option of blocking certain options from the trade table. The AI can stop the human from requesting certain things and I wish the human had that control too.

 

[Ramesses-Rules]

This could be solved if the human had the option of blocking certain options from the trade table. The AI can stop the human from requesting certain things and I wish the human had that control too.

Another cute trick the AI does is ask you to join his war one turn before he makes peace with his enemy. So, if you accept his invitation thinking you are joining in a 2-against-1 war, it turns out you are fighting by yourself in a war you really didn't much want in the first place.

I have been playing a very frustrating game all day today. Saladin, Mao, and Wang all have different religions. Saladin and Mao are "annoyed" with Wang, but I am the only civ that has borders with Wang and, to make matters worse, Wang is buddy with the Japanese dude. I can't do an early rush on Wang because there is a bunch of crappy desert and mountain tiles to get over. My War Chariots could get over there, but he is protective, so it would probably get bogged down. The game is going to be a diplomatic mess because I seriously don't think they will ever attack him, but they would be happy to attack me if I trade with him!

 

[Iranon]

This could be solved if the human had the option of blocking certain options from the trade table. The AI can stop the human from requesting certain things and I wish the human had that control too.

As a convenience feature, or do you hope to avoid diplomatic repercussions?
Again, the system is fair. An AI that denies me things I want is at a higher risk to be invaded. Or at least to be declared war on to simplify diplomacy if applicable (keeping a few allies happy and hating on everyone else is easier than trying to please everyone).

 

[capnvonbaron]

That depends. For example, during the Napoleonic Wars the USA traded relatively freely with both sides, a source of some tension for... trading with people's worst enemies. (Can a Civ blockade shut down such trade? Hm.)

Yeah but only in the beginning of the Napoleonic wars, and only to spite the British. The US never claimed any sort of neutrality. Eventually even, the US stopped it because the Brits started (in a sense) kidnapping US sailors and making them work on their warships.

 

[damerell]

Yeah but only in the beginning of the Napoleonic wars, and only to spite the British. The US never claimed any sort of neutrality.

OK; what about Switzerland in WW2? Traded with both sides; clearly neutral.

 

[capnvonbaron]

Dunno, can't argue it because I dunno if they did or not. Couldn't tell ya if they gave anything to the Germans, or not. Maybe "neutrality" could be defined as not helping the aggressor in a war?

 

[damerell]

Dunno, can't argue it because I dunno if they did or not. Couldn't tell ya if they gave anything to the Germans, or not. Maybe "neutrality" could be defined as not helping the aggressor in a war?

http://www.swissworld.org/en/history/the_20th_century/the_swiss_economy_in_world_war_ii/

But, I don't think your proposal is a bad one. In game terms, there has to be a downside to declaring neutrality - the player should have to think seriously about whether it is best to do it, join the war, or take the diplo hits for refusing aid.

If all trade agreements were suspended for the duration, that could seriously inconvenience the player if they bought health or happy (or military) resources from the belligerents. I'd also suggest that Open Borders would only be effective if you had an agreement with both belligerents - of course in reality the most likely scenario would be to close borders to both, but that would only increase the proportion of "phony wars".

Also, neutrality would represent a potentially expanding commitment - if A and B are at war and you declare neutrality, then C joins the war, you're now neutral against C with no trade, like it or not. This seems both a sensible way for it to work and to give a further downside.

Presumably neutrality could be cancelled either with an immediate DoW (as you suggest, large diplomacy hit with all empires) or by notification and waiting peace-treaty-duration turns.

 

[calibur]

You could declare neutrality, renewable every twenty turns, keep your trades and not be pestered by requests to stop. However, this gives a temporary small diplo hit with all who are currently at war. you cannot declare it if currently at war, and you cannot declare war if currently neutral. People can still declare on you.

Has anyone ever had a Cold War, where the two most powerful civs in the game are battling it out in espionage, as well as weaker friendly civs, but not outright fighting?

 

[damerell]

You could declare neutrality, renewable every twenty turns, keep your trades and not be pestered by requests to stop. However, this gives a temporary small diplo hit with all who are currently at war.

This doesn't work because it is a no-brainer, replacing the existing diplomacy hit with a smaller one with essentially no downside.

 

[Ramesses-Rules]

I'd like to see the game changed so that the AI cannot invite me into a war until he has actually moved units into the enemy territory and both sides have taken casualties. That would go a long way toward eliminating fake wars.

 

[damerell]

I'd like to see the game changed so that the AI cannot invite me into a war until he has actually moved units into the enemy territory and both sides have taken casualties. That would go a long way toward eliminating fake wars.

Surely "when either side has moved units into enemy territory and casualties have been taken". If you require the inviting AI to have moved into enemy territory and to have inflicted casualties, you're eliminating a lot of non-phoney wars - and, in particular, the case where the diplo hit makes most sense, where the AI asking you to join is getting stomped.

 

[capnvonbaron]

Or, how about we just eliminate diplo hits for turning down a request to DoW? In SO many cases, its completely unreasonable that you should be expected to join a war. Just because Shaka really doesn't like someone, doesn't mean you shouldn't like them either. Now, if Shaka reeeally needed help, and offered up a tech or gold for you to join the war and you refuse, then maybe I'd understand. But just asking you to sacrifice troops/trade routes/traded goods and who knows how many "you declared war on our friend!" diplo points from other civs as a favor? Thats BS.

Alternatively, I think the player should get to list positive/negative relationship points with rival civs such that, if you are friends with a neighbor for instance, some jerk across the world doesn't even have the option to ask you to DoW. Make it a conditional list type of thing in the advisors menu -- if you share a religion, give the option to add positive points to your relationship status. If a civ DoWs you, make it an option to add negative points. Essentially you create a friends list and a s#itlist, so to speak, that AI must weigh in before it can ask you to stop trades, DoW, etc. Also, if a civ knows its on your s#itlist, if reacts to you different than if it was on your friends list. Maybe it piles defenders in border cities if its a strong civ, or maybe if its weak it'll cave to demands more readily. Sure could add an interesting and diverse facet to the game...

 

[Windsor]

It's not at all. From a gameplay perspective the game needs trade-offs. It's already a bit to easy to keep everyone happy.

And it makes sense from a realism perspective too. Just look at recent history. Can't we say that France got a diplo hit when they refused to help the US invade Iraq? I would certainly say so.

 

[capnvonbaron]

The US didn't need help invading Iraq -- France got "negative diplo" because they basically condemned the US for invading. Besides, its not like the US is going to go about invading France anytime soon, or considering France to all of a sudden be "our worst enemy!" either because of that "negative diplo". More than anything, its just US citizens making fun of the Frenchies for being hippie peace-mongers.

 

[damerell]

Alternatively, I think the player should get to list positive/negative relationship points with rival civs such that, if you are friends with a neighbor for instance, some jerk across the world doesn't even have the option to ask you to DoW.

I don't know about all this, but it does strike me as odd that an AI at Furious can ask you to join a war on its side.