Mutual Protection Pact adjustments

[Sims2789]

Yesterday, I was playing a game on a map of Europe as Luxembourg. I was (and still am) the most powerful country in the game. Here is a map of the game:

However, Poland signed a Right Of Passage agreement with Austria and put troops near Luxembourg City. I told Poland to withdraw its troops, so Poland declared war on me. I easily defeated their troops, as they were using the usualy combination of Cavalry and obsolete units to attack me. However, when I bombed the city in between Austria and Romania near my border close to what is in real life Bosnia, Scotland and Finland declared war on me, citing a Mutual Protection Pact. But remember, it was Poland, not I, Luxembourg, who declared war! Why should I be prevented from invading Poland if it was Poland that attacked me? In Civ4, I hope that Mutual Protection Pacts are changed so that if the aggressor has to fight in its own territory, its allies will not come to its aid. It is simply unfair that I am prevented from counterattacking Poland in a war that it started.

 

[rhialto]

I think once an agressor is forced into the defensive, a MPP ally should be able to come to his aid. But you should be allowed to kill any number of his forces outside his territory without activating the pact. Currently, you can't even defend yourself without activating an mpp in c3c.

 

[searcheagle]

I agree something has to be done to fix the current MPP system. I do not think your solution is a good one. No matter happens, if you territory is attacked, the MPP showed be activated. I would however like to see the ability cheating to occur in diplomatic agreements, including, MPP. You have aggressive German troops eating up your cities. What about having the British turn on you. The British announce, "We have decided that you brought this on you yourself and will not participate in your defense. Under your system, an attack on any territory would prevent an alliance from being activated. Under the current system, they are activated to easily, reguardless of who started it or how far they get, making it activated too easily. Both will not work.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I think once an agressor is forced into the defensive, a MPP ally should be able to come to his aid. But you should be allowed to kill any number of his forces outside his territory without activating the pact. Currently, you can't even defend yourself without activating an mpp in c3c.

I agree with this, although there should be more diplomatic options available than now. Maybe you could choose to sign some sort of restricted mpp if you wanted to protect yourself from being dragged into a war by an aggressive ally, and there are probably more changes that could be made in mpp's.

Are you sure you can't even defend your own territory without triggering other mpp's? I was almost sure you could...

 

[searcheagle]

-well what you can do and what you can't do are pretty limited.

The advisor should also warn you that you are about to enact a MPP and spell what you can do before you attack them.

 

[Albow]

I think that the point of the MPP is to make a bunch of weak powers much more scary to attack ... so, no, I say stick with it!

but also agree more diplo options are needed!

 

[Sims2789]

I think once an agressor is forced into the defensive, a MPP ally should be able to come to his aid. But you should be allowed to kill any number of his forces outside his territory without activating the pact. Currently, you can't even defend yourself without activating an mpp in c3c.

But if the aggressor takes over one of my cities and I try to get it back, then war will be declared on me. In Conquests, you can attack enemy units outside of your enemy's territory, but if you try to do something such as take over a city or destroy a city's industrial capacity, then the civ's in the MPP will declare war on you. If an agressor is forced into the defensive, why should an ally help them? It was them who attacked first.

 

[Sims2789]

The AI should also be stopped from signing seemingly random military alliances, especially with weak countries. I also hate it when there are "inland islands."

 

[Dida]

Well, no I think the current MPP is very good.

 

[Arminius]

My theory:
If MPPs have been signed, there are some options for the aggressor, the defender, and the allies of both. The aggressor can approach the allies of the defender to determine what it will require to ensure their neutrality, or their help... The allies of the defender can choose whether or not to assist their ally. The defender can approach the allies of the aggressor to secure their neutrality or help, also. All this can work off pop-up boxes.

 

[Sims2789]

Well, no I think the current MPP is very good.

But I cannot defend myself if I cannot harm my opponent! It is like not being able to punch in a fist fight and only being able to block. How can I stop them from punching if I cannot hurt them?

 

[Sims2789]

What if we simply made the rules for Mutual Protection Pacts/Military Alliances/etc. adjustable in the Game Setup?

 

[Spatula]

I do think the current MPP system is a little screwed. Remember, offense is the best form of defence, but if you can't do that then it seems unfair to me to have a system that benefits the aggressor.

Perhaps the MPP only becomes activated if you attack a city with has mostly-forgein nationals? That way you can recapture a recently lost city without triggering the MPP.

I also like the idea that fighting the aggressor in your own borders should not trigger an MPP either.

In the days when I used to regulalry sign MPPs, it always annoyed me when I was dragged into a war I wasn't ready for. I would much rather have suffered the rep hit than lose cities (and in a lot more cases, units like workers) that happened to be vulnerable at the time. What if instead of immediately having to declare war, you were given the option whether to or not? Refusing would result in a big rep hit though (which might not matter if you were going for out-and-out conquest but it would be something to seriously consider, especially for UN votes).

 

[sealman]

But who is the agressor in your situation? Poland who actually attacked or you for making the demands against another civ?

As far as Scotland and Finland are concerned, you are the agressor for making outragious demands on their ally. The two are content to sit on the sidelines and observe the war until you actually invade Polish terrotories in which case, the must PROTECT their ally as sipulated in the MPP. So in this case, I think it works correctly.

However, if you do not demand Poland to leave and then they attack your city, then when you counterattack, the MPP should not be in effect since it is clear who the actual agressor state is.

That is just my opinion. I also think that if you are at war with a civ and he signs an MPP with another civ, you should have some time to make peace or withdraw your forces before you are declared war upon.

 

[awcabot]

I see it in two ways:

1. Either add a very complex MPP structure, where you can define an MPP purely defensive, offensive, valid against certain Civs, but not others, depending on your relations with the other Civ, whether you are at peace, the price of oil, the phase of the moon, your horoscope...

2. Make MPPs optional. Not upholding an MPP will throw your reputation in the gutter, your other MPPs will be invalid and you it will be easier to sell ice to eskimos than have another MPP before a million years have passed.
The AI will consider whether to uphold it's MPP with you depending on it's relations with you, it's relations with the aggressor/defending Civ, it's rep loss and a variety of other factors which can be calculated in the deepths of the game.

 

[Stid]

i wouldnt agree with the fact that they (scotland & finland) shouldnt be able to declare war on u when u invade poland however mutural protection packs should hav the ability to be modified to say under what circumstances they would join the war. btw i found ur map very interestin

 

[searcheagle]

I really like spatula's idea for activating a MPP- having a certain % (such as 50, 75%, etc) of the population of a city foreign born. THis allows two things:

1. Territory to be recovered
2. Territory disputes to occur

@awcabot: I too am an advocate of non automatic declarations of war when an ally is attacked. I would make this the case in all other treaties too.

 

[Spatula]

An MPP should only be activated when you invade the agressor's territory, because then its allies have a legitimate obligation to help it. But, as I said, you should be able to defend yourself and re-claim cities that are still (nationality-wise) your own.

 

[sealman]

How about this: the MPP would only kick in if you move into territory that was Poland's PRIOR to the begining of hostilities.

This way, Scotland and Finland would not declare way as you tried to recapture your cities.

 

[Spatula]

Yeh, that's it basically. I couldn't have summed it up better myself.