morkaphi
More Coffee
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2002
- Messages
- 478
Hmmm, now I am confused too.
Actually, I do not have any strong evidence/proof to back my thinking up either. My impression is that, an MPP is not against any specific civ, it's a promise to fight for your pal within the 20 turns when he/she gets attacked, and "20 turns" is a part of the pact. Thus, signing a peace treaty with the common foe within the 20 turns is betraying your pal.
Padma's example makes perfect sense to me, but if this is the case, then no matter what CivB will certainly be a backstabber if C attacks A again, because there is no way B can keep both the promises.
On the other hand, a peace treaty is supposed to last 20 turns, just like an MPP, so... IMHO, if you fail to fight for your pal until the MPP expires, you simply break the pact, but that may not be the way the game works.
Again, I'm not sure how the game works on this issue, so it will be greatly appreciated if anyone can clarify this!


Actually, I do not have any strong evidence/proof to back my thinking up either. My impression is that, an MPP is not against any specific civ, it's a promise to fight for your pal within the 20 turns when he/she gets attacked, and "20 turns" is a part of the pact. Thus, signing a peace treaty with the common foe within the 20 turns is betraying your pal.
Padma's example makes perfect sense to me, but if this is the case, then no matter what CivB will certainly be a backstabber if C attacks A again, because there is no way B can keep both the promises.
On the other hand, a peace treaty is supposed to last 20 turns, just like an MPP, so... IMHO, if you fail to fight for your pal until the MPP expires, you simply break the pact, but that may not be the way the game works.
Again, I'm not sure how the game works on this issue, so it will be greatly appreciated if anyone can clarify this!
