Quick question about Defensive Pact functionality

[Gazebo]

Hey all,

I need some feedback from the community. Currently, as you all know, defensive pacts can be fickle. If you have one and declare war on anyone, the defensive pact ends. There's exploitative behavior in this, as you can often get the AI to pay for a pact and then break it immediately with no repercussion. It also gets the AI in trouble, as they will sometimes break a DP by accident. So, my thought:

Would the community agree to a change in which Defensive Pacts are only annulled if they expire naturally, or if you attack the player you have made the Defensive Pact with?

Let me know below.
G

 

[Txurce]

Hey all,

I need some feedback from the community. Currently, as you all know, defensive pacts can be fickle. If you have one and declare war on anyone, the defensive pact ends. There's exploitative behavior in this, as you can often get the AI to pay for a pact and then break it immediately with no repercussion. It also gets the AI in trouble, as they will sometimes break a DP by accident. So, my thought:

Would the community agree to a change in which Defensive Pacts are only annulled if they expire naturally, or if you attack the player you have made the Defensive Pact with?

Let me know below.
G

That's how I've always felt they should work -- not least because it's simpler. I considered adding the ability to cancel them the way you do a DoF, but that could be exploited somewhat in terms of sending the AI down the wrong path. Something to consider in the proposed version is shorter pacts (although again I have mixed feelings about that). What I would like is an easy way to know how long a DP (mine or someone else's) lasts.

 

[pineappledan]

Would you also annull them if you denounce them?

Also I'm not sure if this is already the case, but do DPs lower the threat level of your armies being close to the AI's borders, like how open borders does?

 

[Maddiekins]

I'm on board with only allowing them to expire naturally, or attack that player obviously. I also feel like a peace treaty should trump a defensive pact. I might be wrong, but I believe I've seen situations where a DP caused a restart of war with a player I just recently made peace with and still had a treaty with.

 

[ashendashin]

YES. Please. I hate continuing games where I'm lagging behind because there's no way I can get any reliable protection. Also I tend to exploit the AI by waiting for a DP member to get bribed for some random war.

 

[GodDamnItAlexander]

Would the community agree to a change in which Defensive Pacts are only annulled if they expire naturally, or if you attack the player you have made the Defensive Pact with?

I think that buffs wide too much. Not only are you big and strong, but you can now use DPs to make friends with far away Civs and get diplomatic favor with them and at the same time eat up your neighbors. Also imagine two tall empires deciding to team up and fight against a wide empire that's eating up his neighbors AND has a DP with the other widest empire in the game.
DP should be a defensive tool. I would change it that the one breaking the DP would get a diplomatic penalty, similar to making a promise not to spy and then breaking it or backstabbing. Also that the AI would have the ability to remember how past DPs went with a certain Civ and consider it.

YES. Please. I hate continuing games where I'm lagging behind because there's no way I can get any reliable protection.

Try to become someones vassal.

 

[ashendashin]

Try to become someones vassal.

Hahaha no thanks. That's for extreme cases, not situations where I just want to actually take advantage of good relations for defensive purposes. I find that friends are only useful for trade and freedom to attack those not in the friendship chain.

As for the rest of your post, I don't think it holds well. DPs aren't common among the top civs as they tend to compete against each other. Making DPs with far off civs can easily create problems for you when they're attacked. A better way to handle it would be a penalty for attacking while in a DP. Maybe cutting the length in half along with a large warmonger penalty, allowing any civs that get dragged into a war with another set of DPs to cut ties with the attacker.

 

[lunker]

Yes, I would at the very least like to try this way for a while. At the very least I think a tooltip should mention that DP's are nulled by attacking. I was fooled once upon a time in believing it was safe to declare war because I had secured a nearby DP...

 

[Enginseer]

Oh boy I love World Wars again.

 

[GodDamnItAlexander]

Hahaha no thanks. That's for extreme cases, not situations where I just want to actually take advantage of good relations for defensive purposes. I find that friends are only useful for trade and freedom to attack those not in the friendship chain.

As for the rest of your post, I don't think it holds well. DPs aren't common among the top civs as they tend to compete against each other. Making DPs with far off civs can easily create problems for you when they're attacked. A better way to handle it would be a penalty for attacking while in a DP. Maybe cutting the length in half along with a large warmonger penalty, allowing any civs that get dragged into a war with another set of DPs to cut ties with the attacker.

Penalty to attack is a very boring nerf. DP is a diplomatic action and it should have diplomatic consequences.

 

[ashendashin]

Penalty to attack is a very boring nerf. DP is a diplomatic action and it should have diplomatic consequences.

That's the idea I'm going for, but I doubt cutting the length would help the situation. I only threw out an idea. The deal is too binding and often expensive, so there needs to be some guarantee in it outside of betrayal. I understand your stance as it's probably gonna need a penalty for exploiting its protection, but cutting it off entirely at any war makes DPs unfeasible right now.

 

[Enginseer]

Without jokes, I think this issue may create bugs and overlaps.

If Civ A has a DP with Civ B and Civ C.

But Civ C has a DP with Civ D.

Civ E declares war on Civ D.

Does Civ E technically declare war on Civ A-D then?

If Civ A has a DP with Civ B and Civ C.

Civ A declares war on Civ D which Civ D has a DP with Civ C.

Who has better priority? Who do Civ C get to support? Civ D and has its DP annulled? There are many logic breaking apart.

 

[ashendashin]

Without jokes, I think this issue may create bugs and overlaps.

If Civ A has a DP with Civ B and Civ C.

But Civ C has a DP with Civ D.

Civ E declares war on Civ D.

Does Civ E technically declare war on Civ A-D then?

If Civ A has a DP with Civ B and Civ C.

Civ A declares war on Civ D which Civ D has a DP with Civ C.

Who has better priority? Who do Civ C get to support? Civ D and has its DP annulled? There are many logic breaking apart.

If the DP logic is strict enough, then Civ E would only be at war with D and C.

For A vs D, well there might need to be some special logic for DP bubbles. Optimal setup would be breaking the DP with C in that case, since Civ C was technically betrayed as Civ A clearly valued D's land enough to ignore C. C would then be faced with the choice of helping their friend afterwards.

In the case that B had a DP with C but not D, then Civ B should not be dragged in the war and keep both DPs. Perhaps give B a negative view of A for stepping on C's friends. That's where the logic issue comes up since C would then be blocked from helping D unless B joined them. Civ A might have to have their DPs broken entirely from betraying C, but can the AI really consider the worth of attacking D?

 

[vuko]

Europa universalis 4 has a great alliance and defensive pact system. When you want to declare a war there is always a tooltip saying which country will follow your quest and which ones will defend the enemy. The AI would need some kind of intelligent behavior to decide which side will it support and this info should be displayed to the player

 

[Jakman217]

The best Idea for such chains would probably be to just stop it after the first connection.

If A declares war on B and B has a DP with C and D, and D as a DP with E, only C and D would be dragged into the war Because B doesn't have a DP with E.

While I find WWI scenarios to be tragically humorous, I would say it is either all or nothing. Either stop with immediate defensive pacts or let them chain to your heart's content.

 

[Moi Magnus]

I agree that the current situation is bad, but since it is good to have all part of the debate, here is an example where the current situation is mostly good :
A, B, C, and D have all DP with each others.
A and B are friends, and make a joint war against C

Current result (untested) :
A at war against C and D
B at war against C and D
C and D have a DP

Perfect result we want to :
A at war against C and D
B at war against C and D
A and B have a DP
C and D have a DP

Bad result we could obtain :
A at war against B, C and D
B at war against A, C and D
C and D have a DP

As a remark : do we still agree that in this situation, D is a defender an not an offender ? Meaning that DP doesn't make YOU declare war, but the attacker declare war on you too.

 

[ashendashin]

It'd be interesting if DPs made joint wars a lot easier and get broken with a high penalty for a solo DoW. Of course the AI would need to quit accepting bribes while they have a DP. The AI breaking their own DPs all the time is what needs to stop.

 

[tu_79]

I like the way this is implemented in EU4, too. But that's close to real politics!
As I see it, a country that signed a defense pact must respect it, but only when the other country is being directly attacked. Should be simple.

Examples: Active Defense Pacts, A <--> B, and A <---> C, D <--> E
If D declares war on A, then B and C joins the war.
If D declares war on B, then only A joins the war. C should not join the war, for he only swore to protect A in case A was attacked.
If B declares war on C, then A sides with C, no diplo penalty.
E never joins war.

I also find weird that a Defense Pact expires after the first war joined. Let this be for a fixed time, the same we are obliged to stay at war for a fixed time.

 

[ashendashin]

C would then be faced with the choice of helping their friend afterwards.

How did I get this bit in my head?. Civ D and C would immediately be at war with A. B wouldn't be an issue so long as a civ can get locked into a war without bringing in extra DP members. Not like each civ makes a full declaration right? I don't see any logic issues.

EU4 methods would be awesome though.

 

[civplayer33]

I would be fine with DP not breaking on DOW if DP can be cancelled like DOF can and goes away on Denouncement or DOW of your DP partner by you.

Edit: And to make it harder to abuse there could be a minimum mandatory duration (15 turns?) as well as a diplomatic penalty if it's cancelled before it naturally runs out.