Diplomacy

dakooch · December 23, 2002, 23:06

I have two serious problems with the game's interpretation/understanding of Diplomatic Agreements;
1. A Mutual Protection pact should only be valid if you or your ally is attacked. It is NOT a military alliance. Hence, when a Civ with whom you have such a pact decides to initiate hostilities against another Civ you are NOT required to declare war also.
2. A Right of Passage agreement is one thing on land and another on water. A Civ should NOT be able to use a Right of Passage ageement on land to wage war unless it is allied to the Civ granting the Right of Passage agreement. For one Civ to attack THROUGH another Civs territory is a cause of war for the host Civ against the attacked Civ.

bobbo008 · December 23, 2002, 23:29

"Hence, when a Civ with whom you have such a pact decides to initiate hostilities against another Civ you are NOT required to declare war also."

You are not forced to declare war on the 3rd civ until it ATTACKS the civ you have a MPP with, no matter the circumstances.

I dont get the second part of your post...

swagled · December 24, 2002, 00:42

He's saying that if you have countries A-B-C and A wants to attack C by crossing B, that A should have a protection pact with B. (i.e. they can't just barge in.)

It also sounds like he's saying if A uses B's territory to launch an attack on C, that B should also be considered an aggressor.

I agree it's annoying that when you are in C's position, you can't chase A's troops back across B's border without starting a war with B. (But, that is kinda like how real wars happen with multuiple sides being drawn in.)

bobbo008 · December 24, 2002, 01:01

I knew the first one and I see the second one now. I wonder how it was in the first two civs? What's worse is when civs without ROP keep trying to cross your territory, and you keep requesting till they're forced to or declare war, and they keep doing it, and then your relations deteriorate. Why dont they just seek a ROP, declare war, or stop trying?

swagled · December 24, 2002, 13:11

I agree with you on that. The trespassing civ should contact you and request ROP before the attack begins on the other civ. Give the human the choice whether to sour relations with the attacker, or take a chance that the tresspassing troops will drag him into a war with the attacked civ.

Maybe Firaxis felt that it was easier on gameplay to not be "interrupted" so much, because the AI has so many "needs" to use your territory. The tresspasser also might not have an embassy with you -- which is a requirement for these agreements.

dakooch · December 24, 2002, 20:13

I think you guys worked out the pertinent issues. The diplomacy aspect of the Civ III leaves something to be desired on this issue. An ROP is normally used (in the real world) for water passage. Perhaps a land ROP should only be available if you have an MPP or an alliance with the country you seek to cross.

arslankhan · December 24, 2002, 23:56

In addition to whats been discussed here, I think being able to have restricted ROP would be good. Like "We need passage through your territory near _____City". Restricting their access to certain defined corridors would be more realistic, as opposed to letting hordes of foriegn troops run amok all over your empire.

swagled · December 25, 2002, 00:25

It's often said that Civ is just a game, and not intended to mimic the real world... but since we're making those distinctions, ROP in the modern era is land/sea/air.

Diplomatically, yielding ROP for air is the least intrusive. (Even Russia managed to gave the US air ROP for the campaign in Afghanistan.) Likewise it's considered something of a slap in the face diplomatically, to not allow a "mere" air passage (i.e. US attack on Libya that were denied French airspace).

So a ROP request could be for air, sea, or land (or all of them), with corresponding imposition and annoyance for the leader you are asking.

bobbo008 · December 25, 2002, 03:49

you're right, we should be talking about the damn french

Lord_Davinator · December 26, 2002, 04:26

where do the french come in on this? the french do come in on everything for some reason... funny how I haven't seen a french dude on apolyton

Combat Ingrid · December 26, 2002, 06:01

Quote:

Originally posted by dakooch
2. A Right of Passage agreement is one thing on land and another on water. A Civ should NOT be able to use a Right of Passage ageement on land to wage war unless it is allied to the Civ granting the Right of Passage agreement. For one Civ to attack THROUGH another Civs territory is a cause of war for the host Civ against the attacked Civ.

How about WW2, Germany attacking Norway by using the Swedish railroads? I don't think Sweden was considered to be at war with Norway?

DAVOUT · December 26, 2002, 07:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Lord_Davinator
where do the french come in on this? the french do come in on everything for some reason... funny how I haven't seen a french dude on apolyton

You did not look in the right place

dakooch · December 26, 2002, 11:36

I was unaware of this fact. However, if this was common knowledge and if Norway had somehow managed to survive the invasion, perhaps they might have taken some serious action against Sweden.

mazzz · December 26, 2002, 13:06

well when i was persia in my huge world map i used arabia (I have a ROP) as a base to attack them, i filled the red sea with my destroyers and amounted 100+ marines&gurilles at Jerusalem(Arabia has all readly destoryed the Israelites) I had to wait for there wines to me to end, but after that i demaned 5 gold per turn just to fell justifed because i knew they would refuse, but the accepteped! i have to waitr 20 turns! then after that i just declared war,suez fell at the first turn soon all 15 cities were mine.. I used arabia as a base, much like the u.s. is using gulf states like qatar,bahrain as a bast qatar or bahrain wont declare war on iraq... it common to use counties as a base for an attack

dakooch · December 26, 2002, 16:11

I am not arguing about how common the use of ROP may be in conducting hostilities, I AM saying that there IS and/or SHOULD BE political consequences. I assure you that the Gulf States are not happy with the prospects of the US launching an attack on Iraq from their territory and absent a UN Resolution or the US forking up some money or serious political concessions probably won't allow them to use those bases. The reason the Gulf States are uncomfortable is that they know Iraq would consider the use of bases for the purpose of conducting hostilities an act of war and might retaliate (if they could).
P.S. I have no idea what was the last country that actually went to war by issuing a declaration. Such political nicities seem to be passe'.

Mad Bomber · December 26, 2002, 20:05

Quote:

P.S. I have no idea what was the last country that actually went to war by issuing a declaration. Such political nicities seem to be passe'.

Last one I can remember was December 8, 1941.

OOPS. There was also one on September 12, 2001

Lord_Davinator · December 26, 2002, 23:04

hey there is a french dude... wassup dav!

dakooch · December 26, 2002, 23:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Mad Bomber

Last one I can remember was December 8, 1941.

OOPS. There was also one on September 12, 2001

"War is God's way of teaching American's geography".
So said Ambrose Bierce.
Unfortunately, even HE has not found a way to teach them history.
The last time the United States officially declared war on anybody was June 5th, 1942. War was declared on Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania. Apparently this was so embarrassing that it was not used again. Most subsequent military actions by US armed forces are officially recognized as "congressionally authorized military actions", but some don't even come up to that level of legality.
The last time I can remember anyone "officially" delcaring war was the Soviet Union's belated declaration against Japan in August 1945.

Mad Bomber · December 27, 2002, 08:20

Dakooch-

My apologies, I had misread your post. I did know that the USSR had declared war in 1945. I was just replying with little sleep and no coffee

In retrosect, I should have known that Bush wouldn't have had the balls for an official declaration.

bobbo008 · December 27, 2002, 13:51

"Norway had somehow managed to survive the invasion, perhaps they might have taken some serious action against Sweden."

Doubtful to say the least. Norway's 4 million against Sweden's 8 million on a front some 800 km long would not have been very interesting. I also think the whole purpose of neutrality is so that doesn't happen. The Swedes and Norweigans are almost the same people, so much that a Swede and a Norweigan can communicate using their native tongue. Happily, during WWII, Norway did take out a large portion of the german navy, and the Danes just sucked.

dakooch · December 28, 2002, 03:21

Quote:

Originally posted by bobbo008

Doubtful to say the least. Norway's 4 million against Sweden's 8 million on a front some 800 km long would not have been very interesting. I also think the whole purpose of neutrality is so that doesn't happen. The Swedes and Norweigans are almost the same people, so much that a Swede and a Norweigan can communicate using their native tongue. Happily, during WWII, Norway did take out a large portion of the german navy, and the Danes just sucked.

"You can always tell a Norwegian (Swede, Dane), you just can't tell them much."
- Dag Hammerskold

The "serious" action I was speaking of need not be military. I should think a Norwegian boycott of exports of salt cod to Sweden would have brought them to their knees in a matter of weeks.

bobbo008 · December 28, 2002, 03:46

SALT COD??? This was allowing right of passage not pushing their country into the ocean you heartless war mongar.