Oath Breaker!

[Bjornlo]

Ok, so I was playing Civ3. I was happily schoolin' the tribe1, but tribe2 got in the way. They allowed his troops through and blocked my access to my foe. Ok, so if they are undeclared allies, lemme show him a little what-for.
A few turns later he begs for peace. Since he is not really my goal, but a roadblock I offer a deal. Ally with me against tribe1, give me access to your roads, and all your money, and a worker and I will remove my boot from your throat. He goes for it. Together we quickly reduce tribe1 to a footnote in history. But as soon as the last city falls, tribe2 is back at war with me without ever declaring it.

It must have something to do with the fact that war with tribe1 was a condition of our peace. But, which one of us is now getting the oath-breaker penalty? I suspect it is me since the world got much more interesting in a hurry.

Thoughts?

 

[cubsfan6506]

Shoulnd't this be in the main civ3 forumn by the way I don't know.

 

[Pounder]

Yes war was a condition of peace. This must be kind of rare in most games, can say I remember it happening to me. I usually don't ask someone I'm at war with to go to war with me, usually can't convince them.

 

[Partizanac]

Shoulnd't this be in the main civ3 forumn by the way I don't know.

Bjornlo is a very important member of C&C so he can post here what ever he wants

 

[Plotinus]

Well no, this isn't a C&C subject.

Moderator Action: Thread moved.

In answer to the question, you just know you're the one with the penalty. In fact, can AI civs even suffer oath-breaker penalties at all?

 

[Delphi456]

. I usually don't ask someone I'm at war with to go to war with me, usually can't convince them.

I was kicking Sumeria's butt when Portugal attacked my army stationed near a newly captured Sumerian city. Portugal wiped out my army and captured 30 cannons. WW went through the roof, so I got Sumeria to switch sides, allying with me against Portugal; plug i got 50gpt from them.

 

[Walliard]

Bjornlo: Your deal with tribe2 involved both a military alliance and a peace treaty, among other things. Once tribe1 was defeated, the alliance automatically ended, causing the whole deal, including treaty, to fall apart. This would be what caused the rep hit.

So the lesson of the story is: Never sign MA and PT in the same deal.

 

[ThinkTank]

Actually this mechanism is used by many players to their advantage because you can use it to create war happiness for your tribe.
Create one deal that involves both a peac treaty and an alliance against another. If that tribe is eliminated, or your ally breaks the treaty within 20 turns, they are forced to declare war on you and thus you get war hapiness.

 

[Bobv13]

Oaths are the dagger you gave your to your assailant. Only give them when you have a bigger and faster sword.

 

[Alpha Killer II]

Crush the traitors!!!!

 

[PaperBeetle]

Actually this mechanism is used by many players to their advantage because you can use it to create war happiness for your tribe.
Create one deal that involves both a peac treaty and an alliance against another. If that tribe is eliminated, or your ally breaks the treaty within 20 turns, they are forced to declare war on you and thus you get war hapiness.

Yes, I would absolutely recommend linking peace treaties and alliances, but it always requires a bit of thought about how you want it end in the long run. If you are the one to kill the third party, then you certainly won't get any war happiness from it. If the AI kills them, I'm not quite sure if you get war happiness (you certainly ought to). Usually, you would use the strategy in a situation where you weren't too bothered about the war, just hoping that the two AIs agree peace; that definitely gets you war happiness.

 

[ThinkTank]

True. Two situations where I find it useful.

1. Two AIs on a far away island or continent. You actually don't care about the outcome of the war as you won't be fighting it anyway - you just use the war to engineer some future war happiness for yourself.

2. You want to go to war with a neighbour tribe say A. You'd like A to declare, as well as first waste their offensive units on someone else. So you declare on B which is on the other side of A, and ally with A inlcuding a peace treaty.

 

[Red Horse]

Interesting idea: Linking MA with PT. I'll have to try that.

I'm confused though. I'm familiar with war weariness but never heard of war happiness. Would someone please explain.

 

[Aabraxan]

I'm confused though. I'm familiar with war weariness but never heard of war happiness. Would someone please explain.

Just what it sounds like. If the AI declares war on you, your civ gets "war happiness," which provides a happiness effect. Unfortunately, I do not know enough to say how much of a happiness effect it causes. IIUC, war happiness is only available in those governments that are affected by war weariness, though. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong.)

Edit: And welcome to CFC, Red Horse!

 

[MAS]

war happiness is better described as negative war weariness. Because thats how it works mechanically.

Look at this article: How Does War Weariness Work? by Oystein 12/8/03

If the AI declares, your WW level is set to level -1 witch provides 25% happiness-effect. So if a city is size 12, you will get 3 happiness-effect in that city.
Keep in mind how happiness-effect works: A content pop is made happy, and if no content pop are left, and unhappy one is made content.

Also consider that the war weariness is accounted per civ you are at war with.
So if 3 civ declare on you, you will get 9 happiness-effect in total in that before mentioned city.

 

[Red Horse]

Thanks for the replies, guys. Very informative.
I guess I never took much notice of WW since I usually use govs that it doesn't matter. War seems to be an integral part of my game.