Patch today!

albie_123 said:
Um, that's not a confirmation on two seperate fixes. He never even says warscore, that's just vague placative speak ("A sloution we think you'll like"). How do you know he wasn't referring to this patch?
Click to expand...

Because the reddit thread was about the war score. Also, in the live stream last Thursday, Pete Murray said that there would be a hotfix for the alliance bug and that the devs were working on the war score issue, implying two separate fixes.
 
KrikkitTwo said:
Any fix for the "my allies went to war with each other now I'm at war with both of them" bug mentioned?
Click to expand...

Not sure. The quote just says "when a player declares war, all the player’s allies will also declare war on the target. If you are at war, and then you form an alliance with a faction that has not yet met your opponent, your new ally will not join the war automatically, since they don’t have prior diplomatic contact."
 
KrikkitTwo said:
Any fix for the "my allies went to war with each other now I'm at war with both of them" bug mentioned?
Click to expand...

Isn't that how allies are supposed to work? As allies, you do everything you can to support each other, including going to war. Even in real life, that's how it tends to work.
 
oakdragon said:
Isn't that how allies are supposed to work? As allies, you do everything you can to support each other, including going to war. Even in real life, that's how it tends to work.
Click to expand...

Real life you would probably pick one side... If the UK declared war on France tomorrow, I doubt the US would declare war on both of them, or it would stay out.
 
oakdragon said:
Isn't that how allies are supposed to work? As allies, you do everything you can to support each other, including going to war. Even in real life, that's how it tends to work.
Click to expand...

No, it's the exact opposite.

For example, if for whatever reason a war broke out between Australia and New Zealand, the US would not be obligated to declare war on both parties, and would instead remain allied with both (although of course in real life, they would be likely to 'pick' a side to support at some point).

The best way to handle it would be for the player to decide who to support, but failing that, remaining at peace with both parties is far superior to being at war with both.
 
oakdragon said:
Isn't that how allies are supposed to work? As allies, you do everything you can to support each other, including going to war. Even in real life, that's how it tends to work.
Click to expand...
He's saying that he goes to war with BOTH his allies.

How it should work is:

Either (following how the text is phrased):
Ally A declares war on Ally B.
You're now at war with Ally B and still allied with Ally A.

Of course ideally you'd be allowed to choose who to support and get a diplo bonus from the "neutral" factions if you choose to ally with the defending player instead of the attacker and a "Broke his Alliance"-Penalty if he sides with the Attacker (both, logically as well as for balance reasons, because the attacker is usually the stronger one).
 
What a disappointing patch... Does anyone even use alliances? Last time I checked, they were still as broken as they are in Civ5. If you're dragged into a defensive war, because a faction you were cooperating with declares war on your ally, then you get the backstabbing penalty, since the game counts being called into a war as you declaring the war.
 
albie_123 said:
No, it's the exact opposite.

For example, if for whatever reason a war broke out between Australia and New Zealand, the US would not be obligated to declare war on both parties, and would instead remain allied with both (although of course in real life, they would be likely to 'pick' a side to support at some point).

The best way to handle it would be for the player to decide who to support, but failing that, remaining at peace with both parties is far superior to being at war with both.
Click to expand...

Well if they
1. want alliances to still mean something (always at war with the same people)
2. don't want to work in a choice popup, that the AI would have to handle as well

They can just make it defensive... If one of your allies declares war on the other, then you declare war on the one that declared war (even if they did so because of Their Allies)

OR...
to declare war on someone you must declare war on all their allies (ie you don't declare war on individual factions)
 
Ryika said:
How it should work is:

Either (following how the text is phrased):
Ally A declares war on Ally B.
You're now at war with Ally B and still allied with Ally A.

Of course ideally you'd be allowed to choose who to support and get a diplo bonus from the "neutral" factions if you choose to ally with the defending player instead of the attacker and a "Broke his Alliance"-Penalty if he sides with the Attacker (both, logically as well as for balance reasons, because the attacker is usually the stronger one).
Click to expand...

I like this solution, though it might also be affected by whether other AI's like/dislike the two combatants.

When two AI's go to war, you might also get the option to simply stay out of it and (possibly canceling the alliance?). When Greece & Turkey went to war several decades ago (and they both WERE calling on NATO assistance), the rest of NATO did not enter the conflict... that should probably always be an option, if only for cases where 2 allies fight each other rather than ally vs non-ally.
 
How will this fix the problem of when your allies go to war with each other? Will you still auto-DoW both of them? That seems like a way bigger problem than your allies not going to war on your side. When that happened in Vanilla they never did anything useful anyway and just peaced out after the minimum number of turns.
 
omniclast said:
How will this fix the problem of when your allies go to war with each other? Will you still auto-DoW both of them? That seems like a way bigger problem than your allies not going to war on your side. When that happened in Vanilla they never did anything useful anyway and just peaced out after the minimum number of turns.
Click to expand...

Let's hope the devs caught that one in this hotfix. If not, let's just be patient. It's going to take them multiple tries to fix all the major bugs in this expansion.
 
omniclast said:
How will this fix the problem of when your allies go to war with each other? Will you still auto-DoW both of them? That seems like a way bigger problem than your allies not going to war on your side. When that happened in Vanilla they never did anything useful anyway and just peaced out after the minimum number of turns.
Click to expand...

By the way they worded it, I think you will join the aggressor when this happens, instead of DoW'ing both of them.

Not crazy about this, personally. Players can exploit this while going for Domination. Form a team of allies, conquer away. Once complete, make sure to pull the trigger first and DoW each ally one by one, the rest of your team will follow. :rolleyes:

I really like KrikkitTwo's logic -- if Firaxis doesn't want to create a popup which asks you to choose a side (or choose no side!) because the AI will most definitely screw it up anyway, then...

As Krik suggested:

If you declare war on a target, you're simultaneously declaring war on all their allies too.

Simple. Effective. Now, if a member of the alliance wants to kill another member, he's going to have to go up against everybody for being a traitor.
 
I definitely want Firaxis to fix alliances the right way. But I also think that players need to carefully consider what an alliance is. Since an alliance is a promise to join the ally in all their wars, the player should carefully consider if that is something they are willing to risk. Washington warned against tangled alliances that would drag the US into foreign wars. Personally, even with alliances fixed, I think players should only have 1 AI ally. That way they are not dragged into too many wars they don't want to be involved in.
 
I like the defensive idea, but whether it's defensive or aggressive the key for it to work is that you don't get diplo penalties for breaking your alliance. It's really frustrating to get the whole world pissed off at me for breaking an alliance I had no intention of breaking.
 
9 megs seems pretty big for a code fix? There are whole mods that big. Like the whole community balance patch is only 6 megs haha and that changes a huge amount of game play.
 
Patches for the game aren't like Mods (at least most of the time).

A mod just tells the game what changes it wants to make, it doesn't have to contain all the logic and code.

A patch however makes changes to the base file that then replaces the original one. So even a 1-character-change can lead to multiple mbs of download size if the base file is that big. A Mod would do the same thing with 1-2 kb.
 
Barathor said:
If you declare war on a target, you're simultaneously declaring war on all their allies too.

Simple. Effective. Now, if a member of the alliance wants to kill another member, he's going to have to go up against everybody for being a traitor.
Click to expand...

That's how it should always have been since Civ V was released. And I would add that AI should consider the military score of the whole alliance before deciding whether to go or not to war with the lot of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

FXS_Sar
Update 1.1.1 - Patch 1 - March 27, 2025
2
Replies
26
Views
4K
Yzman
Yzman
R
Best complete way to play BE?
Replies
2
Views
725
vorlon_mi
vorlon_mi
A
Patch for 1.2.0 Properly Supports Metal
Replies
0
Views
598
aggrobot
A
P
Game stagger like crazy for me after last patch. Anyone also noticed that?
Replies
0
Views
646
pinhead65
P
Markus5
"Unable to save file"
Replies
9
Views
578
Markus5
Markus5
Back
Top Bottom