mutual protection vs non-aggression

[crciv]

I know that the suggestion box is closed, so call this an observation...

there are mutual protection pacts (NATO, for example), there are, historically, also non-aggression pacts...the Soviet Union had one with Imperial Japan...neither went to war to help the other just because the other was being attacked (or counter attacked in the case of Japan), and though either could have violated their pact, the Soviets let it expire before they attacked in '45...very much like a well-behaved civ player.

Anohther example: N.Korea is not asking for a mutual protection pact from the U.S., they want a non-aggression pact.

Having non-aggression pacts would be a boon...there are times when one does not want to be ganged up on but also want to not get dragged into someone else's war.

Have noticed that the civ citizens treat a declaration of war on behalf of an ally that is attacked differently than if one goes to war when directly attacked....

well, maybe some future version will have this varient.

 

[unscratchedfoot]

This is a good idea crcv. Maybe you should mention it on the suggestion sticky on top.

 

[Emp.Napoleon]

Put this in the Civ 4 thread.

 

[JazzToucan]

Hate to be a wet blanket, but there really isn't much difference from what you are talking about from a normal "peace treaty" in the game.

Non-agression pacts in real life aren't really worth the paper they're printed on... indeed international law is a very amorphous concept. Moreover, "violating" peace treaties in Civ pretty much have the same affect as violating a non-agression pact in the real world: you'll be shunned by other nations/civs in terms of trading, alliances, etc. It actually works out rather well the way it is now.

 

[Haiku]

Or you could add the non aggression pact with some features that make it quite different from a peace treaty.

For example a 20 turn duration, not to get stuck forever, and a more drastic penalty for broking the alliance than during peace time.

 

[JustBen]

Yeah, Haiku... except we already have those. It's called "Right of Passage."

 

[Haiku]

And if a non agression pact does not allowed to walk on you partner's country ? This way it's not really a RoP

Anyway i'm not sure there is a use to a such new diplomatic agreement, but maybe more various diplomaty, the better ?

 

[microbe]

Originally posted by JustBen
Yeah, Haiku... except we already have those. It's called "Right of Passage."

This, and Peace Treaty, are NOT non-agression pact, either in real life or in the game if this feature existed.

Very simple. Once you sign a non-agression pact, you cannot attack each other for 20 turns.

 

[Dr Elmer Jiggle]

The point of a non-agression pact would be to discourage an attack with the threat of a reputation hit, right? So any "x per turn" trade should do the job. If you don't have a luxury or strategic resource to trade, you could probably just set up a loan of 20 gold for 1 gold per turn.

 

[JazzToucan]

Originally posted by microbe


This, and Peace Treaty, are NOT non-agression pact, either in real life or in the game if this feature existed.

Very simple. Once you sign a non-agression pact, you cannot attack each other for 20 turns.

My point is, in the real world, non-agression pacts are only made meaningful by the sanctions from other nations. One could easily sign a non-agression pact and break it the next day. The better real world correlation is the peace treaty where you are shunned if you recklessly attack other civs. In the real world, there is no mystical force that holds one nation's armed forces in limbo, paralyzing them from crossing into another nation and declaring war.

Having a non-agression pact option is both a less realistic option than the average peace treaty and can make the game a bit too easy if you can coast without any fear of war or aggression for twenty turns at a time.

Now, if you wanted to add international courts and a more in-depth UN interface to the game, that's another story -- an impractical story, but another story nonetheless.

 

[microbe]

Originally posted by JazzToucan

In the real world, there is no mystical force that holds one nation's armed forces in limbo, paralyzing them from crossing into another nation and declaring war.

Sure, but so is MPP. In real world you could break it as well, but in the game you cannot. Same for "Locked Alliance" or "Locked war".

Since we already have such enforced pacts, an enforced "peace treaty" might be interesting too.

Of course things might be interesting if the two mix together (i.e., A&B have an MPP, A&C have a NAP, and C attacks B..but we already have such a problem with MPP+Locked Alliance).

 

[valamas]

During WW2, Russia and Japan had a non-aggression pact. When Germany fell, Russia declared war on Japan and sent 1.6 million troops into China.

I don't see how a non aggression pact is any different from a peace treaty in CIV. Both of you don't want to start a second front.

 

[Dr Elmer Jiggle]

Originally posted by valamas
[BI don't see how a non aggression pact is any different from a peace treaty in CIV. Both of you don't want to start a second front. [/B]

The main difference as I see it is you can't start a peace treaty whenever you want and have it last 20 turns from that point in time. If you're at peace with somebody and have been for at least 20 turns, then they're free to declare war on you whenever they please, and there's nothing you can do about it through a peace treaty. On the other hand, if non-agression pacts existed, you could sign one and have 20 turns where you knew that they'd take a reputation hit for going to war.

Again, however, I don't see how this differs from setting up a 20 gold for 1 gold per turn loan. Unless you can't afford the 20 gold, they're really identical.

 

[valamas]

i see your point, thanks.

 

[JazzToucan]

Actually, I've seen the AI break MPPs all the time, i.e., if I'm party to an MPP with a civ, they've attacked me in the past. Plus, MPPs aren't really something you're locked into -- if civ A and civ B sign an MPP and civ C attacks Civ A, despite the fact that civ B must immediately declare war on civ C, after a few turns, Civ B is free to seek peace with civ C even if civ C is still attacking civ A.

 

[Grille]

Originally posted by Dr Elmer Jiggle

The main difference as I see it is you can't start a peace treaty whenever you want and have it last 20 turns from that point in time. If you're at peace with somebody and have been for at least 20 turns, then they're free to declare war on you whenever they please, and there's nothing you can do about it through a peace treaty. On the other hand, if non-agression pacts existed, you could sign one and have 20 turns where you knew that they'd take a reputation hit for going to war.

But the difference to a peace treaty would not be that big anyways. The scenario "you're at peace with somebody and have been for at least 20 turns, and they declare war w/o penalty" simply doesn't usually happen.
At the most, maybe that civ signs an MA with your enemy, you call them a bluff or you triggered their MPP and no treaties are broken thereby (respectively they have no troops on your territory at that time). But that would be the only exception.

If I understood the proposed concept of a non-agression pact correctly, it should lead to a rep hit in case of either party breaking that treaty before expiration.
Well, for one, your proposal...

Again, however, I don't see how this differs from setting up a 20 gold for 1 gold per turn loan. Unless you can't afford the 20 gold, they're really identical.

...adresses this issue already.
But furthermore, the AI declares war while taking a rep hit all the time. They might not break an 'active' peace treaty, but the most common AI behaviour include sneak attacks with troops on your territory (possibly with a ROP in place) or a negative reaction to your "leave or declare" demand. I think it's in fact very rare that an AI civ goes to war w/o getting a rep hit. So if the main purpose of a non-agression pact was to alter the chances of getting rep hits, it's not needed at all. It's so easy to make a black spot on AI's rep. I cannot even remember a game with honorable AIs. Rep-trashing usually starts in bc years: some civ enters your territory, you say "leave/declare"...your angry military advisor shows up... first AI's rep is shot. Then you buy some allies; chances are your allies break existing deals with your enemy in the process - giving a rep hit. Then, some allies won't keep up the MA deal for the full 20 turns (i.e. sign peace with the common enemy). And if the MA included upfront stuff on your side of the table, their rep is trashed. Even if you did not offer upfront stuff, it wouldn't really matter: you bribe them again, thus they're breaking a peace treaty.
For some unusual reason, there may be an AI civ with a clean rep left in the age of MPP. Now that MPP tool gives you another chance of trashing AI's rep (when you're at war, your MPP ally is sometimes even dumb enough to sign peace while you get attacked on your turf in every single turn of the war...).

So why throw in another stumbling block for AI's rep?
Well, of course, a non-agression pact could theoretically trash my rep, but I wouldn't sign it for obvious reasons: I would handicap myself with such a treaty.

edit: Finally, you could re-negotiate yor peace treaties every 20 turns. In such a case, it's recommended to be stronger than the other civ.

 

[Cedrick]

I agree with your analysis. The computer Civs could care less about what their rep is. It never seems to effect them signing and dealing among themselves. Only your rep with them appears to have an effect on deals made.
I just played a game where I was the Greeks at war with the Persians. I managed to get a MA with Rome to open another front on them. The next turn Rome broke our MA by declaring war on me The next turn Rome signed a MA with the Persians. Two turns later, after I took a Roman city and rampaged a few armies through thier territory destroying roads and stuff, Rome signed a peace treaty with me. Two turns later, Rome signed a MA again with Persia and declared war on me.
If I was to try breaking that many treaties, my rep would be so bad no one would deal with me But as you can see it didn't appear to have any effect on the computer civs.

 

[Chauliodus]

Maybe NA packs could be a counter to MPP and military alliences. So that a country has a NA with you will be immune to being "bribed" into a MPP or MA with another Civ that is about to/ is at war with you.

It could promote more of an incentive to negotiate with civs so you won't be backstabbed, than simpley using other nations as tools of your interests.

 

[JBAdams101]

I am a realist of the Morganthau school, and I must say that "non-aggression" pacts are worthless.

 

[Ardeshir Shah]

I for one would relish any opportunities to blatantly violate a non-aggression pact.