IMPORTANT: Fix suggestion for MPP - please read!

Please read the post, then vote.

  • A

    Votes: 24 48.0%
  • B

    Votes: 17 34.0%
  • C

    Votes: 9 18.0%

  • Total voters
    50
Joined
Dec 5, 2001
Messages
7,475
OK OK, we have had this topic again and again. Why do I bring it up again?

Because now is the last chance to get changes before Multiplayer comes out! If we want things fixed, we need to tell Firaxcis loud and clear, and we need to tell them now!

Before you vote, please read the following carefully, even if you *think* you know MPPS and Alliances, and even if you are an experienced player who can and does use the current system to his or her advatage!


How things work now (1.29)

Military Alliances (MA)

Two civilizations can ally against a third by signing a MA. The willingness of the second civilization depedns highly on whether the civ offering the MA is already at war with the intended foe (making the price lower) or not (making the price higher). There is no way of signing up a partner without declaring war right away.

Mutual Protection Pacts (MPP)

Two Civilizations can get each other to declare war on other civilizations via an MPP which forces the second civilization to join the first if any unit within the own cultural borders / tile improvement of the first civilization is attacked. Note the carefull wording, this is where all the problems start!



What are the problems?

1) The rules on when a MPP kicks in are stupid! If a civilizaiton signs up a defence partner via MPP, then attacks a third, the MPP does nothing, as it righly should. If the attcked civilization defends itself, i.e. only attacks units on neutral or its own land, everything is fine. But if the attacked civilizations retaliates against the attacker on the attackers ground, the MPP kicks in! Even if the defender only tries to retake a lost city. To give a real-world example: If Turkey were to surprise-attack Syria and take Damaskus, and if then Syria would try to retake Damaskus, real-world NATO would probably tell Turkey to cut it out. In Civ3, NATO would be forced to declare war on Syria and side with Turnkey when Syria counterattacks. STUPID!!!!!!

The AIs sadly do not know how to use this feature and how to avoid the consequences of it. Thus, attacked civs lash out and draw the attackers MPP partners into the fray.


2) In real world, someone planning an attack war would try to sign up partners before declaring war, not afterwards. In Civ3, you may even find the intended partner saying the will side with you, then you actually declare war and suddenly they tell you no thanx, or you realzie that even the cheap price is too much. Would have been nice to know beforehand!


How to fix that?

Easily: MPP only kick in when a civ is declare war on, that is when the line in the F4 display goes from blue to red. Thus, counterattacks are NOT a trigger for MPP declaration of war.

Military Alliances can be signed without declaring war openly beforehand. Instead, you can sign an alliance promising to go to war, if you then don't the intended partner gets pissed with you can get's to keep the money. What you would do is klcik the civ you plan to ally against, then choose a new option "Plan war against", then check out your allies.
Then, you can normally declare war on them. If you do not do so, there will be a pop-up at the end of the turn telling you: "You allied with XXXX against YYYY, but hane't declared war yet. Declare war? Yes.... No....."
If you choose "No", all deals are off but your intended allies hate you and get to keep what you promised, if you choose yes, they join you.


What are the options for the poll?

A = I want both the suggested changes to MPP and MA

B = Only MPP should be changed

C = No changes please, the current system is absurd but sufficient.
 
I've expoited the MPP because I couldn't afford an alliance against _____. But it makes sense to fix it.
 
Woohoo, B is winning 2-1-1:)

I agree with your points on the MPP. But I don't see a problem with automatically going to war when you join an MA.
 
"when you join..:" that is not the point. i simply want to know the cheap prize before I declare war.... (i.e. I want to be able to check the "what if"s as I could with human.... "hey mad_stork, how bout we gang up on sumthinelse?" - "OK, but you gimme Nationalsim for it!" - "Ok, deal, if Dell19 also joins - let me check...." ;)
 
I voted for A. I like the proposed changes. I think the way MPP's and MA's are handled right now is a little "clunky" but it basically works.

I think that the changes Killer is proposing would be a nice improvement. It's not absolutely necessary, but a definate bonus. However, I'm going to guess that it's not going to make it. Simply because there are 1000's of good ideas and they can only code so many in. I'm pretty sure we'll see quite a few good improvements, but everyone's good ideas won't make it.
 
I voted A, the system as it stands is a bit dodgy. I'd love to see a system where the original nationality of a city is remembered, and a 'legal' war can be faught to take it back, without incuring penalties from alliances, which can quickly domino into a full world war. Also an ally can choose whether or not to honour an MPP if the country attacked bought on the aggression themselves through treachery, or mindless oportunism.
 
You should also be able to stack your units with your partners and base in their cities. I vote A because the more functions the better.
 
A all the way! MPP really should be fixed so that it only applies if someone declares war on you.

Hence, Mutual Protection Pact :lol:
 
I said B because I see a real problem with the way it is now ie to suck allies into a war that they wouldn't normally do. It's supposed to be a Protection pact so i like your suggestion.

The MA is a difficult one. Something is wrong with it, and the AI is constantly breaking them, and their rep hits mean less than ours do. I want it fixed, but not in the way you've said (don't ask me what i'd prefer because i haven't thought about it)
 
I voted for changing the mpp. building an allinace against another nation before hand seems reasonable but having an mpp and then declaring war does not make sense and can be abused. Now, if another option of mutual war ally is made, this would cover an mpp with the intent of declaring war.
 
I voted B.

MPPs as they are now are just military alliances with the enemy name left blank... sign one and your ally will immediatly drag you into some brain damaged scheme to take over the world with vastly inferior forces :)

Also I'd appreciate not to be embargoed by my allies , or attacked by non-allied civs that are at war with my same enemies... at least not on a regular basis :)
 
I agree with what you are saying - an MPP is what you use to get a cheap military alliance at a point in the near future when you want to attack someone, and it shouldn't be.

It should be a way of providing mutual protection (duh! ;) ) in a defensive manner.

The main problem I see with "plan war against" etc is that how will this work in the diplomacy model? Currently, it is quite frustrating if you have mutual protection pacts with more than one civ, and the two (or more) civs declare war on each other. It is a mteer of luck (generally which civ "moves" first in the turn order) as to which you side with (another problem). Plan war against would make things even more complicated, me thinks. :)
 
Personally, I think MPPs should only be triggered if a friendly nation is attacked. If my MPP partner wants to fight a war, I should be offered the ability to void the MPP with no rep hit.
 
There is a problem. (This is according to your modifications) Civ A and C are buddies. A attacks B, Then B successfully defends and attacks A. A loses half its civ. B sits there.
 
Back
Top Bottom