Honoring Mutual Protection pact should not be manditory

SuiteSisterMary · November 13, 2001, 13:30

As it stands, if a pact partner goes to war, your civ automagically declares war.

It should, instead, offer you some choices.
Our "brothers" the Greeks have declared war on the Japanese! Our mutual protection pact requires us to declare war as well!

Yes! We must honour our treaty obligations!
They got themselves into this mess, they can get themselves out of it. (diplomatic hit; major with former pact brother, smaller with all other civs)
Lets strike our "brothers" while their backs are turned. Contact the Japanese and offer an alliance! (war with pact brother, major diplomatic hit, minor hit with other cultures, possible diplomatic increase with the civ you're now trying to help)

I say this because I got dragged into a war, negotiated a separate peace, and was dragged right back in next turn. Really annoyed me.

Kc7mxo · November 13, 2001, 13:40

Dude. If you're not willing to fight, don't become a pact brother. Telling your neighbor they got themselves into it isn't likely to be a diplomatic hit, its likely to be a declaration of war.

If the US was suddenly invaded by some other nation and the rest of nato just shrugged, who do you think we'd come looking for after we finished our war?

I LIKE mutal defense pacts the way they are. At least now they serve some purpose.

If you don't want to fight, don't sign the treaty.

yeesh.

MarkG · November 13, 2001, 13:41

well next time to dont do a pact if you're not ready to honor it

this is a rule of the game, adapt your strategic choices to it:
- dont get into pact if you think you'll face problems from it
- feel certain that the other side will always honor the pact

Peterk · November 13, 2001, 13:44

On the subject of mutual protection pacts, can anyone tell me if the following is true.

Let's say that country A contacts me for a protection pact. I say yes. On the next turn, country A declares war on country B and takes a city. I don't go to war because A was not attacked.

But what if now B counterattacks and takes the city back. Will this oblige me to go to war? The manual is a little unclear because it speaks only in terms of countries attacking one another not in terms of declaring war on another. In this example, if B attacks A in self-defense, I would not expect to have to honor any mutual protection pact because A started it.

Adagio · November 13, 2001, 13:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Peterk
On the subject of mutual protection pacts, can anyone tell me if the following is true.

Let's say that country A contacts me for a protection pact. I say yes. On the next turn, country A declares war on country B and takes a city. I don't go to war because A was not attacked.

But what if now B counterattacks and takes the city back. Will this oblige me to go to war? The manual is a little unclear because it speaks only in terms of countries attacking one another not in terms of declaring war on another. In this example, if B attacks A in self-defense, I would not expect to have to honor any mutual protection pact because A started it.

Well, if the country you have a pact with attacks, you don't need to go to war, but if the country you have a pact with is being attacked you need to come and aid them

MarkG · November 13, 2001, 13:49

Peterk, i think that the moment a unit of your "pact brother"(to use smac terminology) is attacked by another civ, the pact is activated

SuiteSisterMary · November 13, 2001, 13:53

As far as I know, I can break the pact the turn before, or the turn after, the same way you'd break any other diplomatic or trade agreement. I just want the opportunity to break it at the time. After all, I know that I've payed huge AI empires dearly for a 'mutual protection pact' then gone and picked a fight, just to sit back and watch my pact brother steamroll my enemy for me. And that's not right; that's what an alliance is for.

If nothing else, then a MP pact shouldn't be invoked if the pactbrother is the agressor, and I believe that as it stands, that's the way it works.

Peterk · November 13, 2001, 14:11

Yes, but by "attack", do you mean the declaration of war or the act of a unit attacking another???

Mutual protection implies that I am willing to defend the other civ if his homeland is attacked, but not to participate in any invasion during which his units may and probably will be attacked.

I hope they use the declaration of war as the trigger, but it doesn't look like it.

eMarkM · November 13, 2001, 15:06

Quote:

It should, instead, offer you some choices

The problem with this is if you get to have choices to back out than the AI would have to get these choices as well. However it's triggered. If that's the case, the whole idea of MPP goes out the window since you may be counting on your AI partner to come to your aid and they'll likely just say "see ya" like you would like to do to them. So there'd be no point to having them at all if you can just back out at the first sign of trouble.

If you really want to back out, just give a half hearted effort in the war. You still have war weariness, etc, to deal with, but you don't have to go all out and to spend tons of units, esp w/ overseas war. Just bombard their cities a little with navy, perhaps cature a stray city.

An example of how your idea would ruin the whole concept of MPP. I currently have a big lead in the space race w/ Chinesse and French as only civs who could threaten me. They're behind in tech, but both with military close to mine in strength so as I approach launch I anticipate an attack to stop me. These two civs have a MPP with each other, so any aggression on my part and I'll bring them both against me for sure. I want to launch my ship peacefully and don't want war with both so I made MPP with French, which I paid for dearly in luxuries. If the more powerful Chinesse attacks me, the French will be forced to go to war against them. This is just what I want. I can't afford to be attacked by them both simultaneously. The move is made so I don't have to fight two powerful enemies.

Well, if the French can just blow it off just when I want to activate it, than this whole diplomatic move would be pointless and there would be no value to MPPs at all. MPPs are useless if they're not enforced. As others have stated, don't join MPP unless you're prepared to go to war for them. They're not to be taken on lightly.

e

HugoHillbilly · November 13, 2001, 16:05

As far as I can tell MPPs are activated when your pact brothers units are attacked, not necessarily when they declare war.

So If they invade, and the opponent Civ does not counter-attack then you are not dragged into the war.

The Eliminator · November 13, 2001, 17:35

Agreed, you should be able to choose if you are going to join in the fray or not. There also should be a "total alliance" option as well as "mutual protection pacts." I think the Alliance thing was totally glossed over in Civ 3. Just look at the real world, I think Kc7mxo said it best: "If the US was suddenly invaded by some other nation and the rest of nato just shrugged" - just look at the War on Terrorism! Article 5 was invoked, and 75% of NATO members were like "....well, we'll see..." Thats what a mutual protection pact is.

If there was an option for a total alliance - that would rock. Just like the "Golden Triangle Alliance" - USA, UK, and Canada - they are always there for each other. When Article 5 was invoked, the 3 were like "It's on b*tch." Granted all Canada can do is supply you guys with water, gas, and some lumber, but still...

Bottom line is you should be able to decide if you are going to participate in your fellow pact brother's war under a mutual protection pact. If they had a real alliance model, you should have no choice at all.

Kc7mxo · November 13, 2001, 17:50

I can understand your annoyance at having a really aggressive pact brother, but thats the same problem as occurs in the real world. While its definete that the US would have eventually declared war on the Nazis, it wouldn't have happened so soon if the Japanese hadn't attacked, forcing their allies the germans to also declare war.

Wombat · November 13, 2001, 18:01

Actually, the Nazi-Japanese pact only required them to come to each others support if someone declared war on them, not if Germany or Japan attacked someone. That's why Japan never declared war on the USSR. Germany declared war on the USA basically so they could do unlimitted attacks on the Atlantic convoys. (and also because Hitler was an egomaniac who thought the USA was no threat)

SITS · November 13, 2001, 18:33

From what I understand SuiteSisterMary says that it would be nice to have choice and using that choice would mean that you would have to face various consequences. Sounds fair to me.

Also what happens if you have a MPP with two civs and they attack each other? You don't get a choice to whom you back.

Choice!

GNGSpam · November 13, 2001, 19:02

No human player would ever honor a Mutual Protection Pact that wasnt beneficial if it was optional. Largely because its a computer game and therefore our sense of "honor" is pretty muted. Therefore a Mutual Protection pact would basically be pointless as an option.

Venger · November 13, 2001, 20:32

Quote:

Originally posted by SuiteSisterMary
As it stands, if a pact partner goes to war, your civ automagically declares war.

It should, instead, offer you some choices.

Of course it should.

Quote:

Our "brothers" the Greeks have declared war on the Japanese! Our mutual protection pact requires us to declare war as well!

Yes! We must honour our treaty obligations!

Or suffer the consequences...

Quote:

They got themselves into this mess, they can get themselves out of it. (diplomatic hit; major with former pact brother, smaller with all other civs)

It should improve your standing one level with whoever you didn't go to war with (at least short term), should drop your standing 4 notches with whoever you screwed. AND it should give anyone else you have a pact with a free pass to screw you.

Quote:

Lets strike our "brothers" while their backs are turned. Contact the Japanese and offer an alliance! (war with pact brother, major diplomatic hit, minor hit with other cultures, possible diplomatic increase with the civ you're now trying to help)

Vendetta with pact brother, increase of two standings with whoever you didn't declare war against (at least short term), no Civ will ever sign a peace treaty with you who is not at the highest allegiance level (fawning toward your Civ).

Quote:

I say this because I got dragged into a war, negotiated a separate peace, and was dragged right back in next turn. Really annoyed me.

Bad mechanics - too many things can happen to make these pacts nothing more than an arbitrary pain. You are aligned with Civ A, Civ A goes after and kicks Civ B's ass, peace happens, then Civ B retaliates. Now you get to be forced to backing Civ A against what could very well be a just war. Screw that, the AI isn't smart enough to be honorable.

Not to mention, the single greatest non-aggression pact ended treacherously when the Nazis invaded their former ally. Breaking these treaties happens and should be allowed with simple, smart consequences. To disallow it makes for a rather simplistic and unrealistic diplomacy model.

Venger

Kc7mxo · November 13, 2001, 21:31

Quote:

Not to mention, the single greatest non-aggression pact ended treacherously when the Nazis invaded their former ally. Breaking these treaties happens and should be allowed with simple, smart consequences. To disallow it makes for a rather simplistic and unrealistic diplomacy model.

Non aggression pact is a bit different from a mutual defense treaty. And protecting your pact brother isn't about whether a war is honorable or not. Its about you and him agreeing to defend each other if either of you came under attack. Whatever the situation. You don't like, don't sign it.

I LIKE the forced declaration of war due to the pacts.

Raleigh · November 13, 2001, 22:24

Didnt' Civ2 give you the opportunity to disavow your pact? It's not so far fetched, so why not give us the opportunity to do the same thing when our brother is attacked, for a hit to reputation of course - that is if I can find out if there is a way to find out your reputation.

Venger · November 13, 2001, 22:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Kc7mxo

Non aggression pact is a bit different from a mutual defense treaty. And protecting your pact brother isn't about whether a war is honorable or not. Its about you and him agreeing to defend each other if either of you came under attack. Whatever the situation. You don't like, don't sign it.

This non-aggression pact was a little more than your typical NA pact - it included the secret protocols for the division of Poland. In World War I, Italy "betrayed" Germany and Austria and the Triple Alliance and joined the Allies.

Nations when the time come will choose the side of their bread that gets buttered...

Quote:

I LIKE the forced declaration of war due to the pacts.

I'd like some real options that resemble the real world...

Venger

Peterk · November 14, 2001, 09:31

Well, there is sort of a way to back out of the MPP.

Just make peace with the country you're now at war with on the first turn of the war. There's a hit on reputation with your pact brother that is similar to the hit you would get if you refused to declare war in the first place.

Dev · November 14, 2001, 09:41

I'm all for enforced pact honorship, allowing you to worm out of a pact would just be another way for the PC to easily cheat the AI.
I bet you wouldn't be too happy either when your loyal ally through 1000 years suddenly dumps your pact for no other reason than a stupid 1 in 633 dice roll.

MPP shouldn't only trigger when war is declared though and not upon attacks on units in existing wars.

/dev

Grumbold · November 14, 2001, 10:27

I don't think it can be done better than the way EU does it. No matter what treaties you have locked away in a cupboard it requires a positive act for a nation to formally declare war upon another. There is no automatic 'cant-change-your-mind-now' clause that another country can invoke to declare war on your behalf. This is particularly applicable when you have treaties with both nations involved. Just because A declares war on B it cannot dictate which ally you choose to support since either way one treaty is going to be broken.

Just look at the current Nato situation. America is attacked and 90% of Nato fall over themselves with verbal declarations of full support while doing precisely nothing to help. Alliances are only as strong as the political reality.

Dev · November 14, 2001, 10:38

EU lacks the trade feature :\

The EU Alliance/Wartime diplomacy is an order of magnitude better than Civ3 though.

/dev

Grumbold · November 14, 2001, 10:44

Oh yes, strictly talking about the diplomatic treaties it has and how they are implemented. The -200 to +200 scale would make it much easier to determine how demanding the Civ would be in trade talks as well, but that is another discussion.

AuraSeer · November 14, 2001, 14:24

The way it works now makes sense to me.

Right now I'm playing the Americans. I've got a pact with England, and the Russians are about the same strength as either of us.

If Russia attacks England, England is going to send them an envoy: "Bad move, boy! We've got a MP pact with America. Now both of us are gonna kick your ass." Russia, hearing this, knows to expect an American attack, so they automatically declare war on me too. (This is how I conceptualize it, anyway, even though the game's wording is the other way around.)

If I want to break the pact, I can offer Russia a peace treaty on the first turn of the war. They'll have the opportunity to demand stuff from me in exchange, which is realistic. (Russia sez: "You had the bad taste to ally with our enemies, so we're going to crush you both. Oh, you want to remain neutral? Well then, it's gonna cost you....")

ChrisShaffer · November 14, 2001, 14:51

Quote:

Originally posted by AuraSeer
If I want to break the pact, I can offer Russia a peace treaty on the first turn of the war. They'll have the opportunity to demand stuff from me in exchange, which is realistic. (Russia sez: "You had the bad taste to ally with our enemies, so we're going to crush you both. Oh, you want to remain neutral? Well then, it's gonna cost you....")

The problem is, if even a single Russian unit attacks an English unit later during the same turn (or on the very next turn), I automatically am forced to declare war on Russia again. As long as I have a Mutual Protection Pact with England, every time an English unit is attacked, I automatically declare war...

challenge · November 14, 2001, 16:22

So make peace with the Rus and then bail on the MD pact. You look bad to other civs (and well you should since you are an unreliable gutless wonder who is only a friend when it doesn't cost you anything), but you're not likely to be offered another MD pact since you ARE an unreliable gutless wonder who is a friend only when it doesn't cost you anything.

If you want out of the pact, then you shouldn't get into them in the first place. A good rule of thumb is: If the other country has no strategic value (no resource trading critical to the empire, no mutual enemy in striking distance, etc.) why are you in a MD Treaty anyway? Only enter an agreement when it is useful to you, and get out (preferably before it's activated) when it ceases to be so.

Simple global strategy at work here, folks.

BigBopper · November 14, 2001, 16:40

Just to clear things up, (this took me a long time to figure out) You can get out of Mutual Protection treaties by renegotiating peace with your "ally". Once this happens all treaties are wiped, and normal peace declared. (I think, I have never had to go to war) Of course this does cause you to go down a notch in everyones eyes, but if you can't or don't want to go to war you can use this. Then of course this could cause serious trouble if multiple civ's declare war on you.

This happened to me once when many countries had MP's and I didn't, one country started a war with me and within 5 turns most of the world was against me. Of course I got slaughtered. (although defending against massive waves of enemies was fun for awhile)

Venger · November 14, 2001, 22:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Dev
I'm all for enforced pact honorship, allowing you to worm out of a pact would just be another way for the PC to easily cheat the AI.
I bet you wouldn't be too happy either when your loyal ally through 1000 years suddenly dumps your pact for no other reason than a stupid 1 in 633 dice roll.

I don't think it should be based on random probability, but on several factors:

1) Most important - likelihood for success
2) Past history with likely opponent
3) Potential gain
4) Potential cost

This is pretty much the short list for whether or not to go to war, protection pact or not...the protection pacts biggest asset should be that during negotiation and AI decision making that it's considered as a potential cost of going to war with any one civ...

Venger

Venger · November 14, 2001, 22:15

Quote:

Originally posted by AuraSeer
The way it works now makes sense to me.

The way it works now pretty much explains World War I...

Venger