Relation bug due to nukes

[woc]

Not sure if Firaxis still fixes bugs.. And I don't have time for them.

Anyway, situation.
I've a defense pact with Osaka and Saladin.
Zara Yakob attacks me
Both Osaka and Saladin declare war on Zara, honoring our defense pact.

They start to Nuke Zara. I'm holding back my nukes, as to figure out where are the best spots to join their common attack on Zara.

After 4 or 5 turns of war, and Zara with 200-300 units in front of my cities, I decide to nuke Zara on my own territory as well as 1 of his cities where he has another 100+ units stored.

After a few turns, I notice by accident that Both Osaka and Saladin have -5 in relations due to the fact of 'you nuked our friend'

Not sure if this is because I nuked his armies on my territory or because I nuked his cities.

Either way, we're all 3 at war with the same AI. I nuked no-one before in the game, these where my first nukes all on zara (who's definately NOT a friend of the other 2 as we're all at war with him)
So it's definately a bug that I get -5 on relations due to 'you nuked our friend' as I never nuked any friend. I nuked enemy forces.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

If the AI has a defensive pact with you it was forced to declare war when Zara attacked you regardless of its relations to Zara.

Saladin and the other guy might well have been Friendly with Zara and may well still be Friendly with him. It is quite possible that they still like each other even thou they are at war.


Check your diplomacy screen or ask the AI what they think of Zara and you will find that this is most likely the case. Also, uploading a save file would be a nice start.

 

[Cull]

Not a bug, it models real life.

 

[woc]

Not a bug, it models real life.

That's a very harsh statement you make there... Have you thought very thorough what you're saying? You say you are sure you know how politicians behave and you can predict political reactions! Maybe you should join a Think-tank on politics!

Maybe you didn't understand the situation completely. But since you talked about 'your' reality.. Let's use as example to point out the situation 4 countries from the real world.
We're having 4 countries. Russia, Belarus, Poland and the Ukraine.
All are friends. All have +(xxx) on diplomatic relations to another.

In this situation, Russia now declares war on Belarus. Launching already some nukes at them. Poland and the Ukraine, declare war on Russia. They are now (I checked it in my game) not friendly to Russia anymore and at war. All 3 against Russia. Now Russia also throws nuclear missiles on the Ukraine and Poland. All 3 are now under nuclear attack by Russian nuclear forces. Now the Ukraine and Poland decide to retaliate against Russia and launch nukes on Russia. Belarus still holding back it's nuclear missiles, trying to fight the war conventionally, not to unleash the full power of Russian nuclear forces. First cities of Ukraine are falling. Russia is invading the Ukraine massively. At the border with Belarus are now gathering massive amounts of Russian troops. Now they start to invade Belarus. Ukrainian cities are already overrun. Nukes flying from Russia on all 3 countries, and Ukraine and Poland nuking back.
First now, now Belarus is on the verge of overrun as well by the massive amounts of Russian troops crossing the border, Belarus decides to launch a small nuclear strike on those troops. No cities are hit. Belarus picks the spot to nuke very carefully, trying to hit only the Russian armed forces, not any civilians. While Ukraine and Poland nuked cities, Russia nuked cities as well.
Now the question, how can you be so sure, the the launch of 5 nuclear missiles from Belarus on Russian forces crossing the border, will have a negative impact on the relation between Ukraine-Poland versus Belarus? You say that's your real life.

IMHO, I must say, I don't know. And I strongly believe you can't be sure of what you're saying that it's reality that Ukraine and Poland will start to dislike Belarus because it's trying to hold off Russian armed forces by nuking them at the border. But you seem to be 100% sure about it. Maybe you are, like I said, I don't know. So please enlighten me about your logic to make me understand.

But if you however reconsider your stance, saying that indeed politics are usually hard to predict, and you can't be sure in such case whether relations will remain as they are or become a negative influence from such events, or maybe even stronger political ties because Belarus is now joining the efforts to stop the invasion and hold off the enemy, even if it means sacrificing Belorussian territory to the 'inhabitable due to nuclear fall-out' like Poland and Ukraine already did, and Russia as well...

Then I consider this a bug in the game. Because the game says it's 100% it will have a negative impact if Belarus in above situation will nuke the enemies forces crossing it's border. And I strongly believe you can not know this! It might, under circumstances, it might not.. Depending on general public opinion, how the newspapers bring the story.. maybe people in Poland and Ukraine want revenge because Russia nuked their countries, forcing their politicians to support Belarus now even more and think it's the right of Belarus to retaliate? How do you know so sure?

Any way, in the game I checked it while debugging with VS2003. Indeed the negative points come from nuking the invading forces at my border. Nuking the enemies cities and killing his civilians my 2 allies like and enjoy! But when I nuke forces crossing my border, spreading fallout at the border also at my side, then they get a negative impact from it.

And I truly believe, you can not in real life be so sure such an event will cause a negative impact.
I'm rather expect the opposite, talking about real life, after Russia would have launched Nuclear Missiles on Ukraine, Belarus and Poland the rest of Europe would hate Russia. And politicians in Europe wouldn't blame either Poland or Belarus for retaliating nor would they get negative impact between another for retaliating. I'm sure some people would protest, sure they always protest. But the political relations probably even bring those countries more together.

 

[Cull]

Pssh, USSR and US directly after WWII. The numerous fighting, and allying states of China from the fall of the Jing to the rise to Sui. Yes, they are allies, but only in the sense that they ally with each other to achieve a common goal.

I doubt that you were playing with the idea that you are going to be best friends with those civs forever. In many civs games I play, I often ally with one of the higher level military civs, and ally with them to gain more land after fighting our enemies. From there, kill my "ally". If you are, you're one of those Kumbaya people, which isn't a bad thing at all. if you are.

And can you really say that if you nuke upon another country, regardless of reason, others will be happy at you? It doesn't matter how somebody twists it, a nuke is a nuke is a nuke.

You could even argue from the gameplay part. Nukes are super cheap by the time you get them in high-production cities. Putting in that diplo hit is designed to balance out your friends and potential benefits of nukes.

 

[woc]

Pssh, USSR and US directly after WWII. The numerous fighting, and allying states of China from the fall of the Jing to the rise to Sui. Yes, they are allies, but only in the sense that they ally with each other to achieve a common goal.

As you state yourself. They allied up although they already didn't like each other. That's a complete different situation. I'm talking situation where 4 countries are big friends.. UK and USA big friends, and USA nuke japan, didn't really hurt diplo relations with the UK. Actually, nuking japan didn't even hurt relations with Stalin, as Stalin even gave his blessing for nuking Japanese cities! The relations between Communist and Capitalist was already bad, regardless of nuking Japan. But even that's a complete different situation as what I'm talking about.

I doubt that you were playing with the idea that you are going to be best friends with those civs forever. In many civs games I play, I often ally with one of the higher level military civs, and ally with them to gain more land after fighting our enemies. From there, kill my "ally". If you are, you're one of those Kumbaya people, which isn't a bad thing at all. if you are.

Anyone can turn against you. Very true, but it is very unlikely when 3 countries are overrun and nuked from the face of the earth by a fourth nation, 2 of those 3 will get negative impact on their relation with the 3rd solely because the 3rd nation is defending with nukes(like the other 2) at it's borderline. In the game, the other 2 are nuking woman and children, the other 3 I must say, agressor included. While you don't nuke woman and children, and therefore they start to get negative on you? I really doubt this is a good reason for negative political relations. I'd rather say they might turn awkward(=negative) if during the struggle you gain to much power posing a thread to them as well..but surely not if you're overrun, pose no thread, and purely take a defensive stance

And can you really say that if you nuke upon another country, regardless of reason, others will be happy at you? It doesn't matter how somebody twists it, a nuke is a nuke is a nuke.

Ehm, did you read somewhere where I claimed to get +++ on diplo relations if I respond throwing nukes? Because I don't claim this. If I wrote, I miswrite. Surely they won't be happy. But this is politics. Politicians, unlike civil populations, accept unpopular measures in the real world. UK and EU politicians didn't really get a negative stance on the US using nukes against japan. Civil protest yes, but EU still formed NATO with the USA, and even today where Russia doesn't pose a real thread to EU anymore, and european civil is negative towards the USA for it's wars in iraq and afghanistan, there isn't much negative impact for throwing nukes during WWII, at least not on diplomatic level. Sure, the people on the street care, but politics? naaa.. unfortunately they have usually a different agenda then the people.
Anyway, i never claimed to get ++++ for defending using nukes in a nuclear war. But I do claim that countries where politicians already agreed to throw nukes at an aggressor, won't dislike the ally if he starts throwing nukes as well at the common enemy. The people will protest using these weapons. But remember, the politicians already decided to throw nukes. They won't now be holy angels blaming their ally. If they take such unpopular measures themselves already, they'll accept their ally using these weapons as well by staying neutral on this fact(hence no ++ and no --)

You could even argue from the gameplay part. Nukes are super cheap by the time you get them in high-production cities. Putting in that diplo hit is designed to balance out your friends and potential benefits of nukes.

not quite , game-play says it's pretty fine in above situation to throw 10.000 nukes at the enemies cities! Just not throw even 1 nuke on enemy troops in deserted area where your cultural influence expanded to. Don't see much of a balance there..

To cope with the nuclear power, I agree nukes should be at least 10times more expensive, but that's a different discussion. I say:' in this situation, I've encountered, I doubt you can be 100% sure about negative diplo influence if you throw a few nukes at deserted areas on enemy troops purely because your culture expanded there' and if you're not 100% sure, the game should maintain neutrality, hence neither adding + nor - to diplo for these nukes. I mean, it's not like I'm nuking enemy troops on my friends territory!! THEN I agree, it's plausible they will dislike you for doing this as surely they want to make this choice themselves. But in my situation, I'm nuking enemy troops on my lands, where there are no cities from me, most population in a real war fled from the frontlines (hence civilian casualties most likely to be very very low) I really doubt you can be sure how the 2 other nations would respond.

Generally I agree though, throwing nukes is never popular. But if the game accepts tthrowing nukes on enemy population is 'neutral' for diplo relations. But then considers throwing nukes at enemy forces is 'negative' on diplo relations, purely for the fact I'm nuking deserted areas, but only for the reason my culture expanded into these areas..

I really don't think that's a plausible reaction for politicians.. POLITICIANS!!! not people! We're talking about diplomatic relations, not protesters on the street