Non-Aggression Treaties?

[Ajuga]

The only issues with DoF that I have are:
- They often request something absurd like my only Silver recourse or 1000 gold while never gifting me anything as a thanks.
- Becoming a friend will ensure you share the same enemies. Which might add some enemies on your list which can get annoying.

 

[shaglio]

You have to be calculating with DoF's. If you DoF someone that turns into the sour grapes of someone else a few turns later, you will get denounced by the other civ. Then people will ask you to declare war on your DoF's, and if you refuse, you take further diplomatic hits. And then if you don't come through and give into the needs of your DoF partner, he will denounce you after turn 25. Don't DoF unless that AI is on good terms with the major powers in your game. Otherwise you will look like North Korea backing Iran or something.

Aside from using a MOD like InfoAdict, is there a way to tell how the AIs feel about each other if they're not at war? Once the window pops up with the AI leader asking for a DoF, there's no way that I'm aware of to find out how the others feel about this particular leader - unless you take handwriten notes of all the notifications on the right side of the screen (which I could never be bothered to do).

 

[SeptimusOctopus]

In the Diplo Screen there's a Global Politics tab I think it's called that gives you a bit of info about how each civ feels about the other. It just tells you about denunciation and declarations of friendship, so it's not as good as civ 4's grid thing, but it's better than nothing. Unfortunately you can't access it from the negotiation, so you kind of have to remember the diplo picture.

 

[shaglio]

Unfortunately you can't access it from the negotiation, so you kind of have to remember the diplo picture.

Exactly! You should be able to access this screen during diplomacy (like InfoAddict allows). Unless you have a photographic memory or have a notebook nearby to write down every little diplomatic event.

Unfortunately, I can't get InfoAddict to work in conjunction with CivUP, so I just have to live with the consequnces of inferior diplomatic information. Maybe in G&K my spies will keep my more up to date on the global picture.

 

[SeptimusOctopus]

Exactly! You should be able to access this screen during diplomacy (like InfoAddict allows). Unless you have a photographic memory or have a notebook nearby to write down every little diplomatic event.

Yeah that's kind of crucial knowledge that you would expect a world leader to have while negotiating with some one. I misread your other post; I thought you were asking if there was a way to see this information in general.

 

[aluelkdf]

I think that non-agression treaties would be a nice addition. But backstabbing should be an option, with siplomatic consequences. Hitler broke his non-agression treaty with Stalin, he was never sincere, just used the treaty to buy time to conquer western Europe. So basically, a non-agression treaty should not guarantee anything, but just signifgantly decrease the chances of getting attacked.

Moderator Action: No matter how the discussion continues: No more Hitler please.

 

[Callonia]

Well I believe the intention is to have you to make friends with civs you like, rather than making friends depending on how the stat sheet says so. Its more fun that way anyways

 

[bcaiko]

My idea wasn't even necessarily that you had to be friendly; just agree that you're not going to attack one another and give that treaty some teeth.

If you can break the Treaty, it's worthless. Especially in multiplayer. Or it becomes too much like DoFs, and the player can exploit the AI by using it and breaking it.

I just think it would be a good idea to be able to invoke the effects of a peace treaty without the necessity of going to war.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I think that it would take the uncertainty (of backstabbing) out of diplomacy. Part of the fun is the unexpected. I think it is a bad idea unless it can be broken (with diplomatic consequences).

Why should Non-Aggression pacts prevent backstabbing from occurring altogether-it didn't in real life after all (as the NAP between Nazi Germany & Stalinist Russia can attest to). I just think that an NAP should *reduce* the chance of back-stabbing by having such an act carry a much stiffer diplomatic penalty with other AI Civs.

Aussie.

 

[City Builder]

What could they add on that would be the penalty if there was a NAP in Civ 5? I mean what penalty could they add that would actually matter?

I don't see it like the real world and the rest of the nations getting together and boycotting buying the penalized nations cigars or something.

 

[Cedbird]

I think that it would take the uncertainty (of backstabbing) out of diplomacy. Part of the fun is the unexpected. I think it is a bad idea unless it can be broken (with diplomatic consequences).

Ditto . Real world you can sign a piece of paper for anything you want marriage , business , peace etc . Means nothing . If you do not follow up then there are / should be consequences . I think this is a great idea . Maybe give the civ who was aggressed against after the non-aggression treaty gold , a city , resources etc . Along with a bad name of course .
Also if you were a stronger nation you could say to a weaker one . I will sign a NA if you will give me so much gold , resources , etc . If not I can 't promise you won 't see my Trebucts coming down your roads ha ha . Kind of the nice way of demanding stuff from other civs

 

[Cedbird]

The whole point is that it *can't* be broken for the period it covers. That means the treaty is something that the parties shouldn't enter into lightly.

But that takes us out of real world situations and just like it has been said take a lot of fun out of the unexpected backstab lol . Say hello to Hitler and the Czech republic and Stalin . The answer is add the NA with consequences for someone breaking it . That way they have to weigh the consequences with their action . Fun !

Moderator Action: If this discussion continues in the direction of Hitler/Stalin/Mao etc., then we'll close it. Try another direction.

 

[Waywocket]

Moderator Action: If this discussion continues in the direction of Hitler/Stalin/Mao etc., then we'll close it. Try another direction.

I strongly believe this moderator action is highly inappropriate in this context.

In a discussion about historical treaties and the breaking thereof, the forbidding of any reference to some of the most notable and relevant examples in history is unreasonable.
Moderator Action: Please don't comment on moderator actions in public.
If you want to say something about a moderator action, then do it via PM to one of the moderators.

 

[donhenriko]

I love the idea of Non-Agression Pacts. It would spice up full diplomacy NQ FFAs quite a bit.

One should nevertheless be be able to backstab other players.

How I envision it: Lets say the NAP last for 25 turns. Then it can't be broken the first 5 or 10 turns no matter what. From the, it can be broken but it will cause a big increase in unhappiness. Lets say 15-(1 per turn) until the deal expires.

 

[bhavv]

@Eagle, which is how exactly DoF works.. pretty much 90% I have never been back-stabbed by anybody with a DoF with me..

Turn your difficulty up to Diety and start next to montezuma, then come back and try and say the same thing.

DoFs are the most useless diplomatic thing ever from any Civ game.

Civilization 1 and 2 had vastly superior diplomacy to this game.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Well obviously if you are signing a DoF with a Montezuma, it's your own fault.. after so many games you should by now know who to trust, who you don't trust.. Askia, Kammy and Gandhi are the best DoF partners.. I never sign a DoF with Monty (not that he even attempts to sign one anyway)

 

[nokmirt]

I love the idea of Non-Agression Pacts. It would spice up full diplomacy NQ FFAs quite a bit.

One should nevertheless be be able to backstab other players.

How I envision it: Lets say the NAP last for 25 turns. Then it can't be broken the first 5 or 10 turns no matter what. From the, it can be broken but it will cause a big increase in unhappiness. Lets say 15-(1 per turn) until the deal expires.

So, we could say that the NAP has to last at least as long as say, roughly the time it takes to conquer Poland?

This is what I think should happen. A Non-Agression Pact can only be signed between two nations who will both arrange a subagreement, explained below. One example for signing an NAP, would be where both civs are expanding out in opposite directions from each other and share a common border. Both sides are concerned about each others security. The NAP can insure they will not attack each other. Breaking the treaty therefore may not be in the best interest of either party. However, there can be, of course, many reasons for signing an NAP.

Also, NAPs should have a collateral bargaining system in place, a mutually beneficial subagreement. Let's say for hates sake that Germany and Russia sign a NAP, Germany sends Russia horses and coal, in exchange for an 'x' amount of gold per turn, not lump sum. Trading two resources between the two would also work. If the NAP is broken the trade stops. Anyway, a trade exchange of some sort, between the two should be agreed to in order to sign an NAP. Unlike a DoF that can be signed without an extra agreement.

The number of turns the NAP should last, also should be agreed on. Anywhere from 10-30 turns.

Now NAPs can be renewed.

1. Each time an NAP is renewed, both sides gain a diplo bonus with each other. They should also gain a diplo positive with other civs close to them. These civs would be deemed trustworthy in the eyes of others.

2. If the NAP is broken on a subsequent renewal, both civs built up positive diplo modifiers, automatically become an equal amount of negative diplo penalties. In other words, the two civs would automatically hate each other, just as much as they as they used to love each other. This would make it progressively harder for them to have good relations again. Also, the civ breaking the NAP should get diplo penalties from other civs close to the civ who was backstabbed. Those who have an embassy, good relations, or pacts/treaties with that civ. Diplo penalties should vary depending on how close those civs are with the civ who was backstabbed. Civs that have defense pacts with the civ who was backstabbed, of course, DoWs the backstabbing civ.

3. If a first time NAP is broken there should be severe diplo penalties for the civ that breaks the agreement. The backstabber should get a diplo hit with every civ on the map he knows. This penalty should not last forever, but who will trust this civ? I wouldn't.

4. NAPs cannot be broken for so many turns depending on the agreed upon length of the treaty. A 10 turn NAP has to at least have no aggression for 3 turns. A 20 turn NAP would be 6 turns. A 30 turn NAP would be 10 turns.

5. If a civ breaks an NAP, it still can redeem itself over time and effort. If a civ breaks more than one NAP it should be progressively harder and harder to redeem itself, each time it is untrustworthy. At some point the civ should be called an 'international outlaw'. At that point it is simply a bad guy and everyone DoWs it. The war never stops until it is conquered. The only one this outlaw can ally with is other outlaws.

I love my ideas.

 

[Bechhold]

So, we could say that the NAP has to last at least as long as say, roughly the time it takes to conquer Poland?

This is what I think should happen. A Non-Agression Pact can only be signed between two nations who will both arrange a subagreement, explained below. One example for signing an NAP, would be where both civs are expanding out in opposite directions from each other and share a common border. Both sides are concerned about each others security. The NAP can insure they will not attack each other. Breaking the treaty therefore may not be in the best interest of either party. However, there can be, of course, many reasons for signing an NAP.

Also, NAPs should have a collateral bargaining system in place, a mutually beneficial subagreement. Let's say for hates sake that Germany and Russia sign a NAP, Germany sends Russia horses and coal, in exchange for an 'x' amount of gold per turn, not lump sum. Trading two resources between the two would also work. If the NAP is broken the trade stops. Anyway, a trade exchange of some sort, between the two should be agreed to in order to sign an NAP. Unlike a DoF that can be signed without an extra agreement.

The number of turns the NAP should last, also should be agreed on. Anywhere from 10-30 turns.

Now NAPs can be renewed.

1. Each time an NAP is renewed, both sides gain a diplo bonus with each other. They should also gain a diplo positive with other civs close to them. These civs would be deemed trustworthy in the eyes of others.

2. If the NAP is broken on a subsequent renewal, both civs built up positive diplo modifiers, automatically become an equal amount of negative diplo penalties. In other words, the two civs would automatically hate each other, just as much as they as they used to love each other. This would make it progressively harder for them to have good relations again. Also, the civ breaking the NAP should get diplo penalties from other civs close to the civ who was backstabbed. Those who have an embassy, good relations, or pacts/treaties with that civ. Diplo penalties should vary depending on how close those civs are with the civ who was backstabbed. Civs that have defense pacts with the civ who was backstabbed, of course, DoWs the backstabbing civ.

3. If a first time NAP is broken there should be severe diplo penalties for the civ that breaks the agreement. The backstabber should get a diplo hit with every civ on the map he knows. This penalty should not last forever, but who will trust this civ? I wouldn't.

4. NAPs cannot be broken for so many turns depending on the agreed upon length of the treaty. A 10 turn NAP has to at least have no aggression for 3 turns. A 20 turn NAP would be 6 turns. A 30 turn NAP would be 10 turns.

5. If a civ breaks an NAP, it still can redeem itself over time and effort. If a civ breaks more than one NAP it should be progressively harder and harder to redeem itself, each time it is untrustworthy. At some point the civ should be called an 'international outlaw'. At that point it is simply a bad guy and everyone DoWs it. The war never stops until it is conquered. The only one this outlaw can ally with is other outlaws.

I love my ideas.

Should also include automatic open borders, and even less - modifiers concerning trading luxuries.