Why am I not a party to this emergency?

[Abaxial]

So: I am Macedon. I have taken three cities off the Ottomans to the east, including the capital. England (Vic) is to the west. I'm allied to England. England declares war on the Ottomans, and proceeds to march an army all through my empire to attack the Ottomans. Conquers the new Ottoman capital.

Suleiman calls an emergency. But I get no vote as being "not a party to this emergency" - why not? It is right on my doorstep. I would have thought I had a better right to be voting than the other civs some distance away. I've seen this before, and I don't follow what the rule is that prevents you from voting.

As it happened, the emergency failed, the city rebelled and went over to me. Victoria and Suleiman then made peace. Then some turns later, the same thing happened. England declares war or Ottomans, marches a huge army through my domains, conquers two more cities and makes peace. Then both cities rebel and go over to Macedon. By now the alliance has lapsed, and England no longer has free passage, and the English army is trapped in a patch of desert between Macedon and what's left of Ottoman territory. How careless!

 

[Ownsya]

Something similar happened to me recently and while I dont know for sure, my guess is it's because you are allied with England and the emergency would put you at war with them.

 

[Victoria]

You are not part to the emergency because you are allied to England.
It would be silly for you to take part in an emergency and declare war on England when you cannot because you are an ally.

 

[Architect]

But I'm her ally so why can't I vote to protect her?

 

[Victoria]

Suleiman calls an emergency. But I get no vote as being "not a party to this emergency" - why not? It is right on my doorstep.

Apologies, misread your original.
it is called mechanics. When Firaxis implements a new mechanic, it is like they have no out-of-the-box thinker on their team and they just implement a simple mechanic and rely on us to playtest... or do not listen to their own playtesters. In this case the mechanic originally did allow you to but then people voted the opposite way than you did because it was more fruitful (it was around 1000 gold reward then) and this caused you to be at war with your ally... yes this situation did occur. Firaxis has now stopped that by banning allies from voting, once again taking the simple approach (financial?) but of course that leaves your question hanging until enough people kick up a fuss.... which has not happened yet because there are lots of things to kick up a fuss about.

 

[Abaxial]

I'm sure the same thing has happened in instances where I was NOT allied to a participant. Maybe it works with friends as well?

 

[Rosty K]

I'm sure the same thing has happened in instances where I was NOT allied to a participant. Maybe it works with friends as well?

Yes. I'm never a party in the military emergency because I'm always friends with every civ

 

[steveg700]

Apologies, misread your original.
it is called mechanics. When Firaxis implements a new mechanic, it is like they have no out-of-the-box thinker on their team and they just implement a simple mechanic and rely on us to playtest... or do not listen to their own playtesters. In this case the mechanic originally did allow you to but then people voted the opposite way than you did because it was more fruitful (it was around 1000 gold reward then) and this caused you to be at war with your ally... yes this situation did occur. Firaxis has now stopped that by banning allies from voting, once again taking the simple approach (financial?) but of course that leaves your question hanging until enough people kick up a fuss.... which has not happened yet because there are lots of things to kick up a fuss about.

See, I'd rather they just let you out of your alliance. In general, alliances seem way too binding. Would like to see a five-turn exit from them similar to period of time required between denouncement and casus beli.

[insert brexit joke here]

 

[Ownsya]

See, I'd rather they just let you out of your alliance. In general, alliances seem way too binding. Would like to see a five-turn exit from them similar to period of time required between denouncement and casus beli.

[insert brexit joke here]

If you're trying to play a peaceful game, alliances are the only thing that give me peace of mind that I don't need to spend turns beefing up my military so I disagree. I've been back-stabbed when I thought I was safe.

 

[Goodenuf]

I would think that the proper mechanic here would be that all of Victoria's allies would automatically vote along with her, so in your case, Victoria's vote against the emergency would be 2 votes (since it would include you). To extend this mechanic, if Victoria loses the vote (i.e. Emergency is declared) you (as an ally) would be included with Victoria as the target of the emergency. Whether you would get the benefits/nerfs that come with being a target would be a matter of debate.

In any case, clearly this is not what is implemented, but perhaps it should be.

 

[steveg700]

If you're trying to play a peaceful game, alliances are the only thing that give me peace of mind that I don't need to spend turns beefing up my military so I disagree. I've been back-stabbed when I thought I was safe.

Then make allies with those whose goals align with yours. Alliances should be the fruit of mutually beneficial behavior, not a get-out-of-jail-free card that, once acquired, ensures the AI won't object to you amassing grievances, breaking promises, acting against their agendas, etc. I'm not saying you can break an alliance on a whim, mind you, but as the result of what the game defines as bad-faith behavior.

 

[Ownsya]

Then make allies with those whose goals align with yours. Alliances should be the fruit of mutually beneficial behavior, not a get-out-of-jail-free card that, once acquired, ensures the AI won't object to you amassing grievances, breaking promises, acting against their agendas, etc. I'm not saying you can break an alliance on a whim, mind you, but as the result of what the game defines as bad-faith behavior.

What? I thought the AI's opinion of the player can change over time. I seem to remember having allies who later turned to dislike me due to my behavior. I don't see anything wrong with dynamic goals and relationships over time. I don't think it works as a get-out-jail free card like you're describing. I see keeping good relationships even with the intention to betray eventually as simply savvy politics. The AI is capable of doing the same if I'm not mistaken

 

[steveg700]

What? I thought the AI's opinion of the player can change over time. I seem to remember having allies who later turned to dislike me due to my behavior. I don't see anything wrong with dynamic goals and relationships over time. I don't think it works as a get-out-jail free card like you're describing. I see keeping good relationships even with the intention to betray eventually as simply savvy politics. The AI is capable of doing the same if I'm not mistaken

The positive diplomatic bonuses for alliance + embassy + mutual friends + mutual denunciations + other sundries can simply overwhelm negative bonuses. it's certainly possible to wipe out an ally's religion, run espionage missions on them, break promises, pile up grievances, and violate their personal agendas without jeopardizing an alliance.

Because math. Pluses and minuses.

 

[Victoria]

can simply overwhelm negative bonuses. it's certainly possible to wipe out an ally's religion, run espionage missions on them, break promises, pile up grievances, and violate their personal agendas without jeopardizing an alliance.

I hate to say this but I have had over -50 just from espionage missions.
Try settling 3 cities next to an ally, especially 1 within range of their capital.
200 grievances (surprise war +1 city) in enough
Since R&F they have added other hidden modifiers, you start breaking promises and they will not renew
Sure you cannot break an alliance (rightly or wrongly) but you sure as hell can make it end with a bang as can they.

 

[steveg700]

I hate to say this but I have had over -50 just from espionage missions.
Try settling 3 cities next to an ally, especially 1 within range of their capital.
200 grievances (surprise war +1 city) in enough
Since R&F they have added other hidden modifiers, you start breaking promises and they will not renew
Sure you cannot break an alliance (rightly or wrongly) but you sure as hell can make it end with a bang as can they.

Oh, don't get my hopes up now.

I'll have to fire up my current game and paste some screenshots. I took three cities and Inca's capital with a formal war. Populations of 15-21 IIRC (wish I could have kept those terrace farms). Everybody's fine with it, even my buddy Canada. Next on the menu is...Russia? France? Think I'll eradicate Canada's religion while I'm at it. Fingers crossed for an anti-me emergency.

 

[Ownsya]

Oh, don't get my hopes up now.

I'll have to fire up my current game and paste some screenshots. I took three cities and Inca's capital with a formal war. Populations of 15-21 IIRC (wish I could have kept those terrace farms). Everybody's fine with it, even my buddy Canada. Next on the menu is...Russia? France? Think I'll eradicate Canada's religion while I'm at it. Fingers crossed for an anti-me emergency.

Two questions: 1) What difficulty are you playing, and 2) how much more advanced (and stronger militarily) are you than others, especially your neighbors? I get the sense that if other civs feel powerless towards you, they're more likely to let you do as you please. I guess they feel it's in their interest to turn into yes-men so you won't kill them? And I think at lower difficulty settings, the AI is much easier to keep content.

 

[Victoria]

Fingers crossed for an anti-me emergency.

You should have declared a surprise war then.
We can all play at the brink of denouncement, did you take their last city?, no.
Methinks you over exaggerated grievances, you are ‘managing’ them

 

[steveg700]

You should have declared a surprise war then.
We can all play at the brink of denouncement, did you take their last city?, no.
Methinks you over exaggerated grievances, you are ‘managing’ them

Why would I declare a surprise war when I can declare a formal war? What I wind up not taking the last city? Are you contending I can only blow alliances if I want it badly enough? If so, welcome to my page.

If your notions of managing mean I don't actively cook up negative diplo modifiers to get past the brink of denouncement, then you're kind of making my point of how much you can get away with and still maintain alliances.

200 grievances? Lightweight! Cue the Iron Maiden."For it is a human number...."

Now, few people like Pachy, but that's mostly them turning against him after my denouncement. They just like me too much!

I just renewed an alliance with Count Olaf here, one Pac-Man's few remaining well-wishers....

Now, that thing about tolerating barbarians, that's bogus. I assure you, I gank'em whenever I finds'em. Whatever. We're still pals. Good thing I went out of my way to vote for emergencies that I won. Oh, and he likes that he's in the stone age relative to me.

And here's Alan Strang of Hungary, who totally doesn't care that I destroyed his religion. Look at all that green.This guy, we warred for three eras straight. He was that guy who was supposed to wipe out Mali in the first 30 turns. All water under the bridge, naturally.

The only person who hasn't quite decided to love me yet is Pachy's other potential friend, sweet Eleanor. She'll come around, I'm sure. I just have to keep impressing her by being awesome.

Two questions: 1) What difficulty are you playing, and 2) how much more advanced (and stronger militarily) are you than others, especially your neighbors? I get the sense that if other civs feel powerless towards you, they're more likely to let you do as you please. I guess they feel it's in their interest to turn into yes-men so you won't kill them? And I think at lower difficulty settings, the AI is much easier to keep content.

This on Emperor. My military might is unparalleled at this point. However, while that may mean they won't DOW me, it doesn't generate a positive diplo modifier unless you're like Eleanor and specifically respect military might.

 

[Ownsya]

Why would I declare a surprise war when I can declare a formal war? What I wind up not taking the last city? Are you contending I can only blow alliances if I want it badly enough? If so, welcome to my page.

You wouldn't, exactly, and that's why you're doing well diplomatically, you're playing it right. I don't understand what the issue is. You're satisfying the AI agendas and hence good relations, for those you aren't satisfying you have not so good relations. It's true that sometimes after ending a war a civ will surprisingly quickly turn to a friend, but I always took it as a sensible action from their part if I could easily wipe them.

If you're doing well enough in most games and playing it right, you should be able to maintain good relations with most civs. The more successful you are, the more likely you will satisfy their agendas, just by how big your empire is and how much it's doing. Then there are some civs with harder temperaments like those who get annoyed if you have more wonders than them like China I believe. While I'm not understanding why you want the AI to hate you for not (recently) doing anything major to them, I doubt you'll have this same experience every game. Maybe play against civs with harder temperaments to please if you want more drama/action?

 

[steveg700]

Whups. Forgot Dido. I forward-settled her and wiped out her religion. Still likes to sing "Thank You" to me.

...and Teddy just wants to give me a big ol' hug. Cuddly bugger.

+20 for same government? Great Googly Moogly. That's a lot of good will for not much qualification. Pretty handily negates most of my warmongering malus in and of itself. Where is the -20 different government penalty some of these other guys should have?

You wouldn't, exactly, and that's why you're doing well diplomatically, you're playing it right. I don't understand what the issue is. You're satisfying the AI agendas and hence good relations, for those you aren't satisfying you have not so good relations. It's true that sometimes after ending a war a civ will surprisingly quickly turn to a friend, but I always took it as a sensible action from their part if I could easily wipe them.

What am I doing right exactly? I'm not doing anything out of my way to satisfy agendas. Just....winning. I'm going into ally territory and extinguishing their religion, and they could care less. I surprise war would've knocked me up another 50 grievances. Would that have made a difference on top of my rockin' 666?

The point is that once I've achieved ally status, made mutual friends, shared friends, opened borders, trade some luxes, I got about +50 or so in highly-redundant positive diplo modifiers to burn through, and it seems unlikely that my religious or military aggressions are going to make a dent in what was a pretty easy set of positive conditions to meet. -9 for wiping a religion? -12 for a flagrant agenda violation? The +18 for Ally alone sloughs that off. Whatever the opposite of digging yourself into a hole, that's where I'm at.

But I'm done attending to slights.

First, my good buddy Peter came down here and settled desert terrain that is rightfully mine. I thought Russia's annoying unique only claimed extra tundra tiles. I had plans for a park or two that were dashed. Well, the winter won't save you here, comrade.

And Catherine! She blows me loving kisses, but look what she does at Nazca.

Oooooooo, that burns my croissant! A little extermination is just what the doctor ordered!

Let's see how this goes. I will use whatever casus beli is available, but no golden wars.