how about a Non aggression Pact?
- Thread starter redhulkz
- Start date
TheNiceOne
Emperor
And you think the Soviet-German pact was strongOriginally posted by redhulkz
NAP is stronger version
Nazi germany and soviet union had signed NAP before right
It certainly didn't take Hitler 20 years to break it.No, the current peace treaty functions perfectly as a NAP, with one exception, the user interface makes it hard to understand that you can make a 20-turn peace treaty (aka NAP) with a civ you are in peace with (as Soviet - Germany did). But you can.
BTW, I have tested the following: A civ suspiciously moved many military units towards my borders, and declared war the next turn. I reloaded to the turn before the attack, made a NAP (I had to pay some gold) and voila! the civ did not attack. So the AI actually honours a NAP (at least better than Hitler did).
Just a few comments here. I have pushed for a NAP before and have gotten the same responses about the peace treaty being the same thing. But this is a USER exploit and the USER can use it to good effect to get a NAP effect.
BUT I have had the AI come to me and ask for a ROP, or an Alliance, even a MPP, BUT I have never had them come to me and declare war on me then set up a peace treaty in the same turn to not go to war. So un till the AI realizes the fact that a peace treaty can be used for a NAP it is not the same IMHO.
BUT I have had the AI come to me and ask for a ROP, or an Alliance, even a MPP, BUT I have never had them come to me and declare war on me then set up a peace treaty in the same turn to not go to war. So un till the AI realizes the fact that a peace treaty can be used for a NAP it is not the same IMHO.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Hmmm, I'd rather have a cease-fire agreement, myself, rather than an NAP!!
The thing is that a cease-fire is both weaker, and stronger, than a Peace Treaty-for the following reasons:
1) It would have NO set time limit-but would exist until one side or the other declared war again!
2) It would, obviously, only be available to Civs who are currently engaged in conflict.
3) It could be 'broken' (by declaring war) with a far lesser penalty to your reputation, than if you broke a peace treaty.
4) Attacking the other party would NOT result in the breaking of a 'cease fire' agreement UNLESS the other party considered it to be enough of an insult to declare WAR!!!
Anyway, I REALLY think we need this level of 'Peace' especially to simulate such unusual situations as those which exist on the Korean Peninsula!!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
The thing is that a cease-fire is both weaker, and stronger, than a Peace Treaty-for the following reasons:
1) It would have NO set time limit-but would exist until one side or the other declared war again!
2) It would, obviously, only be available to Civs who are currently engaged in conflict.
3) It could be 'broken' (by declaring war) with a far lesser penalty to your reputation, than if you broke a peace treaty.
4) Attacking the other party would NOT result in the breaking of a 'cease fire' agreement UNLESS the other party considered it to be enough of an insult to declare WAR!!!
Anyway, I REALLY think we need this level of 'Peace' especially to simulate such unusual situations as those which exist on the Korean Peninsula!!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
It would be a good idea to enuse neutrality.
TheNiceOne
Emperor
Good comment Meateater. You're correct of course. Today, we have a NAP that only the human player will ever initiate. Making a better GUI for it, and getting the AI to initiate it as well would be nice.
I've had situations where the AI initiated negotiation offering me peace treaties. It is not so common but happens from time to time.
Typically, they just wanted to extend peace treaty signed after the war for the next twenty turns, especially if I seriously weakened them before and they needed more time to recover.
Other times they were very weak compared to my civ and just wanted to assure their survival (or ruin my reputation for breaking treaty).
Typically, they just wanted to extend peace treaty signed after the war for the next twenty turns, especially if I seriously weakened them before and they needed more time to recover.
Other times they were very weak compared to my civ and just wanted to assure their survival (or ruin my reputation for breaking treaty).
TheNiceOne
Emperor
The first situation is not only common, but happens all the time if a peace treaty to stop a war includes gpt, luxuries or resources. The AI will then bring up the peace treaty after 20 turns to stop paying those gpt /luxuries/resources. This is just as if you sold a tech and got 10gpt in return: After 20 turn the AI will not pay the 10gpt any longer. The difference is of course that the AI will continue to have peace treaty with you. But this continued peace treaty is the normal one without the 20-turn period where declaring war will hurt your reputation.
The second, that a weak civ that is (and has been) in peace with you, suggests a peace treaty with you is news to me. I've never seen it, but if it happens, its exactly what Meateater asks for.
Colonel Kraken
Deity
How?
And it would be an enforceable 20-turn treaty (with rep hit to break)?Thanks,
CK
Open negotiations screen, go to active deals, then click on peace treaty (should be listed somewhere there). You will be given warning if you really want to renegotiate peace. Choose 'yes' and make deal.Originally posted by Colonel Kraken
How?
You may include all goods just like in normal trading session: maps, gold, resources etc. Two warnings though:
- after entering negotiations, you MUST make deal, leaving the table or hitting Esc means automatical declaration of war (you will be asked if that is your choice),
- if your trading partner recognizes you as a weaker side, it is you who actually has to pay for peace so don't renegotiate peace with superpowers, unless you suspect they want to invade your lands anyway - at least their reputation will be toast or they will be more reluctant to attack.
Yes.
Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
i like these ideas, very good ideas gen.
Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
are they in conquests?
Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
SWEET!
Colonel Kraken
Deity
Sorry I never got back to you, Gen, but thanks for the tip! 
What if you already have a deal going (i.e. active deal), say of incense for ivory? Does it make sense to renegotiate peace in that case?
--CK
What if you already have a deal going (i.e. active deal), say of incense for ivory? Does it make sense to renegotiate peace in that case?
--CK
Why not? If you can get something in the trade, it's worth doing as long as negotiations are successful and peace is agreed.
However, if you cannot satisfy the other side remember that the result is always automatical declaration of war and you are viewed as aggressor and, in consequence, incense-ivory deal breaker. So better be careful... or say all your reputation bye-bye
However, if you cannot satisfy the other side remember that the result is always automatical declaration of war and you are viewed as aggressor and, in consequence, incense-ivory deal breaker. So better be careful... or say all your reputation bye-bye
Similar threads
