lightsedge
Chieftain
So this is really weird. Russia and Egypt became friends. Then I bribed Russia to declare war on Egypt (for 2 resources). However, they are still friends ...
Screenshot
Screenshot
Russia is at war with its friend
- Thread starter lightsedge
- Start date
Save_Ferris
Admiring Myself
It's called "backstabbing".
lightsedge
Chieftain
I don't see why they should still be friends though
TW_Honorius
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2010
- Messages
- 278
Its not backstabbing because there would be an entry that says Backstabbed Egypt, but there isnt.
SpearMan153
Prince
looks like a bug to me - clearly it should say BACKSTABBED instead of Friends with
lightsedge
Chieftain
And I believe Catherine was also mad at me for attacking her "friend" Egypt 
lightsedge
Chieftain
I just realized there's a bug reports sub-forum. Maybe someone can move this there?
AfterShafter
Deity
Didn't this type of thing use to happen in Europe, where two powers would go to war but apart from military hostilities the leaders were still on relatively positive terms with each which renewed upon the cessation of military actions? Some historian members may smack me on the nose for saying that, but, I kind of got that impression with some of the interrelated monarchs of different European countries - at war one year, allies the next.
In the case of Civ, it's obviously a side effect of the old numerical based (whether we can see the numerical values or not) system from Civ IV which continues in Civ V. At, say, +15 or higher you're "friends," and you're +27 with someone. A declaration of war puts -10 on you, let's say, so you're at +17 - still friends, technically, even though you're at war. It does seem a bit counterintuitive to say that two groups attempting to conquer each others' cities are friends, but on the other hand, saying that warring countries are friends does to some degree reflect that there are other things going on than just the war that's right in front of them. Someone you're at war with now may be a valuable source of resources in the future, a strategically valuable ally VS other nations, have strong cultural similarities to your country - and these types of things would transcend the war you're in with that leader/people even while the war acts against a friendly relationship at this very moment. Heck, sometimes the things that make a war with country X ideal also make country X an ideal friend - and if you can't beat them, you'd want to join them. "Friends" doesn't necessarily mean open borders, sharing beers at the local pub - I sort of take it to mean "someone I'd be happy to and actively want to work with." Sometimes that could describe someone you just went to war with.
All said, it may well be a bug. I'm a bit divided on whether i like such a presentation being possible, but chances are it's a bug - unless the developers feel that warring nations can still be "friends" as per described above. Are we *really* sure this is a bug and deserves to be in the bug report forum? Edit: Too late.
PS - anyone ever have one of those days where many things you write are just loaded with spelling/grammatical errors? I'm usually not perfect, but I'm having to proofread my posts today
In the case of Civ, it's obviously a side effect of the old numerical based (whether we can see the numerical values or not) system from Civ IV which continues in Civ V. At, say, +15 or higher you're "friends," and you're +27 with someone. A declaration of war puts -10 on you, let's say, so you're at +17 - still friends, technically, even though you're at war. It does seem a bit counterintuitive to say that two groups attempting to conquer each others' cities are friends, but on the other hand, saying that warring countries are friends does to some degree reflect that there are other things going on than just the war that's right in front of them. Someone you're at war with now may be a valuable source of resources in the future, a strategically valuable ally VS other nations, have strong cultural similarities to your country - and these types of things would transcend the war you're in with that leader/people even while the war acts against a friendly relationship at this very moment. Heck, sometimes the things that make a war with country X ideal also make country X an ideal friend - and if you can't beat them, you'd want to join them. "Friends" doesn't necessarily mean open borders, sharing beers at the local pub - I sort of take it to mean "someone I'd be happy to and actively want to work with." Sometimes that could describe someone you just went to war with.
All said, it may well be a bug. I'm a bit divided on whether i like such a presentation being possible, but chances are it's a bug - unless the developers feel that warring nations can still be "friends" as per described above. Are we *really* sure this is a bug and deserves to be in the bug report forum? Edit: Too late.
PS - anyone ever have one of those days where many things you write are just loaded with spelling/grammatical errors? I'm usually not perfect, but I'm having to proofread my posts today
Moderator Action: Moved.
Next time please use the "report post" function to get a thread moved, or PM a moderator to do it, thanks.
lightsedge
Chieftain
Interesting idea. I guess there are cases where you're at war in name only, in order to please allies, e.g. the UN and NATO sometimes work like that.
This reminds me of two other thoughts I had:
This reminds me of two other thoughts I had:
- When two countries agree to go to war, shouldn't there be some consequence for inaction? That is, I would get mad if my "ally" declared war but never sent any units, especially if I bribed him
. - There should be a way for countries who were previously at war to become friends relatively quickly, e.g. the US and Japan after World War 2.
Similar threads
