War Peace War Peace...

IceCube · March 13, 2003, 15:56

Here's my two cents on the AI declare war, peace for 10 turns or so, AI declare war again...

It's because relations and Casius Belie (sp?) have not improved since the peace agreements were signed.

If you don't want to go back to war with them increase your relations via diplomacy. Give them techs, trade agreements, pull your spies out, etc.

Lets face it if the AI Empire is mad enough at you to declare war it's because your relations suck. (by actions/inactions of your empire or due to racial hatred)

In particular their 'peoples attitude' (Casius Belie) towards you sucks they are itching to go kill the "evil enemy".

Over turns if there is no combat the 'people' stop seeing you as 'evil enemies that should be destroyed' and sue for an 'uneasy peace'.

A peace that is fragile...if you don't do something to improve relations it's really easy to convince an already upset people to go back to war.

Look at the USA / Iraq conflict for a real life example.

USA goes to war because of Kuwait invasion (a trade partner).

Iraq forces are slaughtered, some American people begin hating Iraqi's less because they feel sorry for the onslaught and overkill.

No diplomacy to improve relations occurs.

Press the Turn button 10 times and it's March 2003...any guesses what happens next?

Arkasian · March 14, 2003, 07:21

Totally off topic, but :

I think the current US, britsh, spanish urge for a war is to prevent a country which posseses the *knowledge* to produce bio/chem weapons from ever spreading them to "organisations with malicios intents" (domestic or foreign).

It's no coincidence that the 3 western countries which recently have experienced terrorist attacks (11/9,IRA,ETA) take this stance - just like it's no coincidence that the rest of EU who do not have these problems do not have the same inclination towards "preemptive war"...

(which is why a mere destruction of what Iraq does or does not have is not going to satisfy US/UK/Esp - they want the *capacity* - that being facilities AND knowledge - destroyed).

..i wonder what position germany would have had, if the Rote Armee Fraction was still active and in business...

..as to the "peace-loving" frace, here's a trivia-questions for you :

-Which country sunk a greenpeace ship stationed in a friendly country (New Zealand) bacause "Rainbow Warrior" insisted on sailing to some small islands where said government conducted nuklear tests ?

Proteus_MST · March 14, 2003, 07:33

It was France.

Now two other Off-Topic Trivia-Questions for the fracton which sees War as the only Solution:

1. Which Country has sold WMDs to the Iraq in the 80s of the last Century.

2. Which country which seems to be Allied to the USA apparently supports Terrorists, has Nuclear Weapons and has a Population which in large parts is Pro-Al Quaida and Pro-Taliban.

IceCube · March 14, 2003, 12:30

1 - USA...wasn't this because they were so afraid of Iran? Also it might be fun to note that it was also the USA that supplied weapons to Afganistan to fight the 'Communist Soviet Invaders' in the 80's as well.

Another off topic point...I learned the above from Billy Joel's

song 'We Didn't Start The Fire'..."The Iatolas in Iran...Weapons to Afghanistan".

If USA does invade Iraq will Billy write a new song? "This time we did start the fire"???

2 - Pakistan???...maybe???...not sure???

Two off topic points...

1) why is the US so preoccupied with Iraq when N.Korea is 'clearly' developing nuclear weapons? (with the right missle config they could attack the west coast)

2) why is it that only non-americans have posted under this topic so far? (common I know you guys have read it!)

Eric S · March 14, 2003, 14:21

Quote:

Originally posted by IceCube

2) why is it that only non-americans have posted under this topic so far? (common I know you guys have read it!)

Don't know. I've kept fairly quiet because I've got rather conflicting emotions on the issue. I'm not proud to be an american (though there aren't too many places I'd rather live), and I don't think we have the right to make the whole world play by our rules. On the other hand, the line has to be drawn somewhere. Technology and destructive ability has made the world a very small place, and someone has to police the neighborhood to keep it safe. But who keeps it safe from us? We've got the toys that everyone else wants, but we don't want them to have them because they might fall into the wrong hands. One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter, and we all know that the US has supported it's share of freedom fighters.

It isn't that I think that we're bad people, it's that when it comes to electing our government, we're a bunch of fear-driven idiots that vote not on what's best for the country/world, but on what preserves our personal slice of the pie the best. We ***** about the lack of term limits, but keep voting the incumbents back into office. We ***** about the fact that the Democratic and Republican parties don't provide the options that we want, but we won't vote for a third party because we don't want to "waste our vote." Heck, ask most people, and they'll say that the US has a two party system. That's even what they teach childeren in school. Might as well be, the multi-party system doesn't seem to be working for us. The campaign laws are all written to favor the two diminant parties, because the people are content to think of anyone that isn't a Republican or Democrat as a crackpot. Some of them are, even among the Libertarians, which is the party I consider myself most closely affiliated.

Arkasian · March 14, 2003, 18:28

Quote:

1. Which Country has sold WMDs to the Iraq in the 80s of the last Century.

USA... and France, Sweden, Germany, UK and i suspect Danish subcontractors made up the conventional-wepons club (if not, we certainly shipped them)...

So we can safely conclude that my enemy's enemy is NOT my friend...

(hopefully an abandoned cold-war artefact)

For the most part, I agree with the "war is not the only solution" but here's some of my speculation on alternatives :

1) Prolonged investigations by Mr. Blix and cohorts...
but for how long ? As I stated the danger is not (only) what they (may) have but what they can produce (today or in the future). In which case the inspectors may be there a very long time. Are the UN then willing to keep up the embargo for as long as it takes (under which the civilian population suffers greatly). Do we expect UK/US to keep the troops there to ensure cooperation (of which there is none if they are not there, as history shows) or are we willing to help pay for those troop deployments ?

2) Hope for a coup ?
Which may lead to a civil war, much like in former Yoguslavia (also 3 major population groups with very different agendas, north, south and center.). Civil wars tend to be more bloody and brutal, they *definately* will be worse for civilians than an invasion, and the following peace will be so more unaesy because neighbour fought neighbour (it's so much easier for the iraqii to resent an american occupation force because eventually the americans will leave - the guy next door wont - unless I kill him before he kills me, if you get my drift). Also, there's no guarantee here, that a coup will be for the better..

3) Leave Iraq alone ?
But if we decide that we cannot meddle in the affairs of sovereign nations, why do we then have the UN ? If we refuse to see what the Americans clearly sees as a threat, why should the Americans acknowledge what we see as threats (specifics: Kyoto.). Also, IF a chem/bio bomb should go off in some western country we'd almost certainly cry out against the leaders who neglected to remove the threat when they had the chance.

If ONLY the EU in all it's "war is not the solution"-craze would present some viable alternatives, like upping the support for rebuilding countries like Afghanistan ("send more money"). REALLY making a commitment to the not-so-fortunate coutries in the world. Explaining to the peoples (us) that peace and stability comes at a price and we should pay up or shut up! (but no... instead we threaten to not participate in rebuilding Iraq after a war.. intended to dis-encourage a war, but also sending an unfortunate "we coulnd't care less" signal to the Iraqi and others - there's money/emplyoment involved in rebuilding and everybody knows that, so as a deterrent it's ineffective at best - which only leaves the downside signal-value).

..and instead Chirac welcomes Mugabe, who have singelhanded made a wonderful job of running his own country from being "Africa's economic jewel" into severe poverty in just 2 years time...

I simply find the european argumentation naive, but mostly because we're not presented with the alternatives to war - only the consequences of war.
We have seen the footage from Japan where chemical weapons have been used by terrorists - are we willing to accept that risk becasue we're against war ?
We're told that if "only the inspectors get more time..." but as long as Iraq posseses the knowledge to produce chem/bio and a leadership who have demonstrated willingness to use such weapons, it will all be for nothing. We'd go through the motions in10-years time...

Some people may find it annoying, but if it weren't for America Kuwait would still be a part of Iraq, and Milosevic would still be in power in Serbia (a serbia with not too many moslems left). Certainly, I think America could be more appreciative of the rest of the world, but neglecting their fears is not helping that cause...

..and frankly.. comparing Bush with Hitler instead of comapring Saddam with Hitler is at it's best stupid! Bush haven't commited genocide (yet).. Saddam has..

deathstick · March 14, 2003, 19:14

I think the main reason no Americans have commented on this subject are twofold. One, I think this game is too cerebral for any staunch Bush supporter to voice his moronic opinion. Two fear that if you speak out too strongly against Bush you might be put on Ashcroft's hit list. I am seriously considering emmigration except I don't like having to wait longer for entertainment products. And as for the genocide comment, nobody really knows what is happening to those poor bastards in Guantanamo.

vmxa1 · March 15, 2003, 00:16

If you held back on your vitriolic comments and paused long enough to consider all aspect you may find there could be other reason why no one responded.
When I read that statement, I just figure you were not worth responding to at all.
The concept that one is a moron if they do not see things as you do is only held my fools. Your being vorciferious does right.
Politics really has no place in these threads and should be in OT. Most people come to these thread to exchange idea about the game and not be assaulted by irate people with axes to grind.

thedraka · March 15, 2003, 00:38

i want ya'll to notice the stars and stripes to the left.

1st let me say i hear u all, see flags of many nations next to ur screen names, and let me say that i am proud to see that u all love ur respective homelands. and having the opportunity to visit some of those lands in back in the 20th, i got to sample the finest things that europe had to offer (mostly ur women).

now as far as ur holier than thou america is the devil talk, let me say EAT POO!

The Frogs- if you dont want to play, take ur soccer ball and go home, stinky bastards, hey im all for u kicking back in ur lil cafes speaking ur lil drop the deuce language, *****ing and moaning, thats ur role. so KNOW UR ROLE, and SHUT UR MOUTH! ur lil veto in the UN is meaningless as most of my people in New York couldnt point out the un on a map even though all they have to do is look out their window.

All those who live in fritzey has two Fathersland- im a lil fuzzy when did we say it was ok for u to have an oppinion? must be hard for u huns having the US UK and frogs and the Reds sit on ya for 60 years after that lil spat in the 40's that OOOOPS u started (again). ill give u credit though u boys shure can fite, we almost chipped a nail over here beating u huns back. but i do give u sneaky guys MAD props for the 4th Reich (what u have the rest calling the EU) jolly good show old beans so heres what i want u to do with ur laughable attitude, pull up a chair with the frogs and contine KNOWING UR ROLL!

Arkasian- UR A PIMP brother!

keep on keepin on, u seem to be the only euro in this string who aint looking at this through hate red white and blue glasses! cheers.

what ur map calls Canada(but we call North NORTH Dakota)- wow u frostbacks suddenly grew balls, not only are u thumbing ur nose at the US, but ur eternal bung hole buddies in the UK as well. just remember this one warning when times get real tough, we always hurt those that are closest to us. all this bluster from a country that couldnt even get Spain to back down a few years back. North NORTH Dakota....... U SUCK! heres ur chair.

i wonder if yall think just cuz the soviets are gone there are no more baddies worth fiteing in the world? wrong answer kids, way wrong. what we are doing FOR U is making sure that there aint no more red menace, or sum lil crazy guy to start WW3.

somebody asked who polices us, have u not seen on the TV all those lil green party tree hugging peaceniks? those are the police of america, no matter how un popular their views are to the rest of us normal people, they always get the press. and thier purpouse is to ***** and moan about every lil thing, cuz once in a while they mite just sorta be almost rite about something.

but about iraq they are wrong! D.E.D. wrong! when it comes to the middle east u should be glad America elects politicians and not regular joes, cuz it just so happened that i was in NY, rode up underneath, walked the ground floor, and strode around the grounds of the WTC on August 7th 2001. so as far as im concered if we turned the muslim world into a parking lot i fully wouldnt lose any sleep WHATSOEVER.

America is so nice, the muslims like to target innocent people(women, children, old people and what) at least we try our best not to(not saying were always perfect). but hey if u want to play dirty NOBODY can play as dirty as we can. has anybody seen the Meal On A Bomb yet? now thats A BOMB!

in closing all i have to ask if not us who? would u rather deal with, red china? cuz there the emerging big boy, at leat europe and america have things in common, like history and an alphabet, what do u euros and china have in common? and whatcha gonna do brother! when Red China and 1.8billion maoamaniacs run wild on U!

ur gonna say "where have u gone joe dimaggio our sory ass nations turn our lonley eyes to u.... whats that u say Mrs.FrogFritz joltin joe has left and gone away, a hay hay, a hay hay"

say im a crazy yank make fun of me even, its all good i dont ask for ur love, consent, or anything!

were gonna do what were gonna do, whether anybody likes it or not!

and thats the bottom line, cuz uncle sam said so!

now i must get back to crushing those filthy Harvesters! cuz i tried dont it ur way, negotiation and appeasement, but they kept rite on coming anyways!

whodathunkit!

General Ludd · March 15, 2003, 10:05

Take that crap to the off topic forum.

On topic,

I think that alot of people who complain about war and peace are refering tot he automatic cease-fire that happens if there is no conflict for X amoutn of turns, and the computer will almsot always declare war again the next turn after.

IceCube · March 15, 2003, 11:49

As it was I who unwittingly started this debacle let me stay on topic...

As I originally posted I have found that if I conduct diplomacy when the auto cease fire begins (or before) I can prevent the AI from starting up the hostilities once again.

The questions you must answer for your Empire is how much is peace worth and what will the enemy best respond to?

Most Empires like gifts of tech! that's pretty simple we all like presents...especially the birthday variety!

Most Empires don't like spies, pull them out...unless of course your spies come with their own harem of Bond Girls!

If your Empire has a huge military force others see it as threating...a non-agression pact helps here! Note: only works if relations can be brought back to so-so levels (try gifts)

Another thing that works is (while still at war) propose peace accords, cease fires, armistades (SP?) or other diplomacy that says: "Can't we all get along!"...even if they reject your proposal I have found it improves Casius Belie.

Also the AI sees the "friend of my enemy is my enemy as well" concept quite well. But will your Empire betray your allies just to stay out of a scrap? You Decide!

As you can see (read) I'm a peace-monger in MOO3 (mostly cause I don't reconfigure ships well) and along thoes lines I appoligize for turning this thread into a debacle...I truly did not anticipate my post to cause such vexation (big v-word is for vmxa1...I'm guessing his Empire likes V words) among the posters. In the future I will keep my real life refrences to ancient historical contexts, such as: "I felt the sword of Damocles dangling as the Raas TF entered my home system"

notyoueither · March 15, 2003, 18:19

Frostbacks?

Ahem...

I've seen mention that the war-peace-war-peace... is a bug that popped up very late in development. It is most likely slated for removal in the upcoming patch.

Prothero · March 17, 2003, 04:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Osweld

I think that alot of people who complain about war and peace are refering tot he automatic cease-fire that happens if there is no conflict for X amoutn of turns, and the computer will almsot always declare war again the next turn after.

Can we alter the X in your post using the .txt files?
Can it be something like 100 turns of silence till the peace is declared?

Eric S · March 17, 2003, 13:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Prothero

Can we alter the X in your post using the .txt files?
Can it be something like 100 turns of silence till the peace is declared?

My guess is that this would actually make things worse, since the AI would see itself fighting on more fronts, so it would be more likely to split up what forces it has. Fixing the AI unaggressiveness should fix this in a better way, in that the AI usually won't go 10 turns without attacking someone that it is at war with.

There's better fixes, but that's the only one I can see working at the mod level.

TJunky · March 17, 2003, 22:31

I've tried to declare peace. My first game (I'm still playing it), it's on the easiest setting. The Elerians (i think...that blue skinned gal) I'd know for about 30 or 60 turns. I had good relations (about 100) with them, research and trade treaties, Casus Belli at about 70. I never sent my ships into their systems. Then, right after I wiped out the Ithikul, my borders were touching theirs, and within 2 turns they declared war. I tried to send gifts and stuff, but they wouldn't declare peace, so I hammered the hell out of them, until they offered a Cease Fire. I took it, pulled out my ships, and the next turn they declared war again. All the while, my relations were still postive.
This has happened with some other races as well. They never declare peace, even when I offer an unconditional surrender with a bunch of good techs. I just can't seem to stop these endless wars.

Prothero · March 18, 2003, 04:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Eric S

My guess is that this would actually make things worse, since the AI would see itself fighting on more fronts, so it would be more likely to split up what forces it has. Fixing the AI unaggressiveness should fix this in a better way, in that the AI usually won't go 10 turns without attacking someone that it is at war with.

There's better fixes, but that's the only one I can see working at the mod level.

And the proportion of ships the AI builds. I don't see how the battle can go on if the he pumps out tons of transports

drsparnum · March 18, 2003, 20:11

Hey,

If you go ten turns without any conflict then a forced peace is declared between the two powers. If the other empire still hates you (which is likely, I'm not giving those jerks anything just to change their mind) they declare war once again. It is particularly stupid/humorous in the beginning of the game when enemy empires like to declare war on you even if they cannot get a starship to your planets. I saw on Infogrames forum that this would be changed although it actually doesn't bother me that much. If you remember that each turn is supposed to be about 2 years instead of the 1 minute it took you to play that turn it seems less ridiculous.

O/T: Please don't take thedraka to represent the opinion of all Americains (or a testament to good grammar either). I guess the reason I did not chime in with my 2 cents before is that it is such a complicated issue I have mixed opinions on the matter and I am not fully settled on where I stand. I just don't want to leave thedraka's comments as the sole significant reply from the USA on this thread (look at that, I guess I do care).

First, I have spent my entire life living within 50 miles of NYC in NY State and NJ and I have been there hundreds of times (I'd live there if I could afford it). I did not lose any personal close friends or family in the tragedy but I know quite a few people who knew people closely who died. I don't want to get into a debate of who has more right to be pissed about things from a couple years ago, I just want to head off counter-arguments that I don't know these things personally.

On one hand, I know that the first people who would critize the USA for doing something to deal with Iraq now (both within the USA and abroad) would be the very same people to critize the USA for not having done something after a disaster strikes in the future. Leadership is so often judged harshly by history for not acting pro-actively when it was obvious to act and it is now being met harshly for trying to act in advance.

However, I cannot help but feel that if the USA takes actions now they will only contribute to training a new crop of terrorists 5-20 years from now within the Arab world by building anti-USA sentiment. It isn't about revenge (and attacking Iraq wouldn't even give the USA revenge since despite Bush claiming there are links between Iraq and Al-Queda I have seen no proof offered - although I concede it is possible it exists and I am not aware of it). Therefore, overall I lean myself in the direction of opposing the war. Foreign policy shouldn't be built upon what has happened but what will make for a better future. Right now, I see more negatives then plusses.

I would favor military actions if the majority of governments of Iraq's neighbors were in favor of a US effort to remove and cripple Iraq's military and leadership. In addition, better support from the world as a whole wouldn't hurt either (although I care less about that-Europeans may thumb their nose at the USA for this but I don't think they are about to drop a dirty bomb on Chicago or anything). These two things would substantially reduce the negative effect this military action will have in its current form on the minds of people in the region who are quite capable of being future terrorists or future peaceful citizens. These nations would also have to favor this without the USA twisting there arm with threats and carrots like immigration and aid policies. I (and you) can never know for sure if the governments are making these descions in the absence of behind the scenes manipulations from the USA - but at least the people who make the big descions know. Furthermore, if Iraq trully is such a great threat the nations most likely to bear the brunt of there military are not the USA (although I concede it does run a risk) but Iraq's neighbors. It is logical to assume Iraq will have short range nuclear weapons before it has long range ones. An ICBM is still a tough thing to develop. Plus, if Saddam is a crazy-nut job then he will likely not hold onto these short range missles and not do anything with them before he develops long range ones.

Hence, if Iraq trully is such a great threat then it should be easy to persuade these nations to support us. I know that there is already some consensus in these nations to support a USA effort (Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and a building of support in Turkey) but without a good consensus (you can never convince everyone) of support I think in the long run you will do more harm then good. I also think it is possible to build this support and that the USA should concentrate its effort on building this support first and attack second.

Finally one thing I noticed. The USA wants to go against a UN policy (since France said no) to attack Iraq for going against a UN policy (keeping WMD).

Furthermore, I think if the USA stops meddling in the affairs of the Middle East when it isn't wanted it will cease to be a terrorist target. Once it is not a terrorist target it won't need to meddle. Not every fight can be the US's fight.

Thats my 2 cents. Maybe I am just a crazy nut. My educational training is in Molecular Biology not foreign policy.