Thoughts on Diplomatic States; Tell Me

SlowwHand · August 2, 2001, 18:54

Talking MP with this.

I can really see the point of "Rah Rules" , but given you're in a non-Rah game, how do you view Alliances and Peace Treaties?

I'll make an alliance, but that doesn't mean I give free passage on my land for cities to be built.

Peace treaties are what I'm even more leery of.
I take a peace treaty to be just as it is defined in the Civ II guide.

"A peace treaty is in theory a permanent arrangement, in which you and your rival agree not to attack each other or even enter the other's territory with military units".

The difference being that in an alliance, your aid is expected should a war develop against your allies; in a peace treaty it's not expected.

Here's the rub.
Many MP player's offer peace because they're weak, and I've just stumbled upon their civ, as a for instance.
They have no intention on keeping the treaty once they build up some.
And that's crap, to me.
Offer a cease fire, if that's your intent.
If you break a peace treaty once, I'm forever suspicious.
I understand deception is part of the world; so please, no lectures required.

Another thing.
I will not exchange maps unless I've chosen alliance.
A peace treaty isn't going to cut the muster.
No way, no how. Don't even ask.

So what of the rest of you?
How do you view the treaties?

War4ever · August 2, 2001, 19:07

well i for one don't trade maps often with people..... sometimes newbies wantto trade map.... sure i guess...saves me mapping their inevitable destruction...

treaties are ceasefires to me..... there is only one kind of treaty and thats an alliance.. even so...unlike the ai , your units aren't sent home , so even in an alliance i keep a war commitee on stand by

SlowwHand · August 2, 2001, 19:23

The map requests amaze me.
I might meet up with someone near their Civ, but far from mine.
I offer peace maybe.
They refuse, and come back with a request to exchange maps.
Are you daft?, is what I'm thinking.

Smash · August 2, 2001, 19:55

with "Rah's Rules" there are no surprises.There is no devious stuff.Sneaky yes,but not devious.Also no whoever meets first wins type thing.

I will trust an ally until I am given reason to do otherwise.

Anything else is approached cautiously.Not neccessarily all out war,but definitely on guard.

I have no problem with maps really.Cities aren't hard to find by other means and there is much to be learned.But I spose enemies should be in the dark.Sometimes its fun to encourage intruders.Many games are too peaceful....and I'd rather die a quick death than a slow painful one

Rasputin · August 2, 2001, 19:57

i value the treaties as real, i know the others dont though.. Cease fire to me is jsut that, an end to agression temporarily to give time to work towards full peace.. Peace treaty is permanent end of all fighting..

alliance is permanent to me, providing my allys are good... if they dont come to my aids once allaince is off

cavebear · August 2, 2001, 21:00

I don't usually use any diplomatic state other than strategic alliance, and I consider that to be a permanent arrangement unless both parties agree at some later point that the game will not play well under that arrangement. That's only happened a couple of times, and we agreed that there would be a withdrawal of units and no attacks for X number of turns afterwards.

I suppose that I would consider a cease fire or peace treaty if I suspected that the warfare was due to some misunderstanding and to give each time to work out borders or something. But normally, I expect some skirmishing to be part of that process.

Rasputin · August 3, 2001, 06:34

getting a peace treaty can be quite handy if the other palyer is in Democracy. Very upsetting to the Senate to break Peace treaty !!!! Can cause a whole nation to collapse into rebellion.... VERY HANDY in MP !!!!

arii · August 3, 2001, 08:37

I think a peace treaty should have some sort of time component to it. Somethink like: peace for the next 500 years.
Otherwise peace treaties are bound to be broken especialy if 1 is pulling ahead.

SlowwHand · August 3, 2001, 10:04

The only thing that will make me break a peace treaty, is an act of aggression.

I consider putting settlers on my land to be just such an act.

Rasputin · August 3, 2001, 10:10

that sort of peace treaty with a time limit is actually called a cease fire... Peace is supposed to be permanent !!!

Would be good if th eplayers could fix a time for the cease fire expiration

rah · August 3, 2001, 10:56

An alliance, I will always honor, and won't dissolve without good warning. (and only in the end game) But yes, settler incursions with the intent to build a city will make me seriously think about the alliance. Except for that, I will allow any units to move through, and I will always trade maps with an ally.

Peace treaties are a matter of convience and are usually made just to buy time. They will be broken and I have no hard feelings when they are. I don't drop my guard.

Cease fires, don't know, never made one.

Map trading. In "rah" rules games, I will sometimes trade maps with people that I can trust not to give it to anyone else. (only a few people qualify to this trust level) and only if I feel I will benefit. (By trade, tech stealing or finding new ignored territory to settle)

RAH

War4ever · August 3, 2001, 12:39

Rah loves to break treaties when his neighbor whom has done nothing to him all game builds the manhattan project...... he also likes to encroach on the neighbors soil...... but this was so long ago......maybe things have changed

SlowwHand · August 3, 2001, 12:49

Well, hell.
I'd just be forced to burn down his Civ, take his women, and eat his old hound dog.

drake · August 3, 2001, 13:08

Raz, really who are you trying to fool

I view peace treaties as a sign of good will towards nations. Not being friends necessarily, but lack of aggression towards one another. Alliances should be close to permanent. One shouldnt be started unless there's intent for it to last a long time.

Backstabbing someone whom you're at peace with is dirty pool, but backstabbing an ally shows that you can't be trusted. Players like this should be annihilated by their collective group.....

Honor is important to me in a civ game.......

SlowwHand · August 3, 2001, 14:21

Are you a Tuatha De Danann member, incognito?

drake · August 3, 2001, 14:33

No sloww, just a player. A very very dedicated player with a strong sense of what civilization really means.

Rasputin · August 3, 2001, 14:36

Quote:

Originally posted by drake
Raz, really who are you trying to fool

I have never broken a Peace Agreement with any Human player Drake......

drake · August 3, 2001, 14:41

I suppose you're right raz.....but you're quite a manipulative character regardless.......

Rasputin · August 3, 2001, 14:47

Quote:

Originally posted by drake
I suppose you're right raz.....but you're quite a manipulative character regardless.......

didnt say i have never gotten the other side to break the Peace agreement when it suits

Cease fire to me means, keep my army ready soon war is coming

Peace is stand down offencive units, keep up defence

Alliance means trust....

rah · August 3, 2001, 15:37

Quote:

Originally posted by War4ever
Rah loves to break treaties when his neighbor whom has done nothing to him all game builds the manhattan project...... he also likes to encroach on the neighbors soil...... but this was so long ago......maybe things have changed

Nope............Nailed that puppy on the head. The only thing that has changed is that you don't fall for it anymore.

My only defense for that dispicable act was.
1. It wasn't an alliance.

2. You got a lot of years of peace out of that treaty. More than I normally would, but you were stronger at the time so I had to bide my time.

3. you were building manhattan proj and I had already stolen techs from all the cities that i could reach. And you had laser, and I figured it would be a good idea to get it from you before you finished the project.

Hence taking a half dozen of your cities was very useful in narrowing the tech gap.

4. You were in the lead and so ripe for the picking.

5. You learned a lot from that experience. You got to nuke someone and we laughed for weeks.

My encroachment strat is pretty standard when there isn't an alliance.

And it seems you've written a few chapters in that book yourself.

RAH
Never trust ferrets unless you have an alliance.

or beavers.

War4ever · August 3, 2001, 15:48

i was just joshing you around

and your correct.... i own a book on that sort of thing......

your also correct about the learning process...... i never underestimated you again.......which is a good thing.......

young naive and good..... only to be humbled by my fellow digging companions

rah · August 3, 2001, 17:05

young naive and good.....

Now you're older, far from naive and much better. And humbled infrequently.

Of course, we like it that way.

RAH
It's all about the game.

War4ever · August 3, 2001, 18:48

well i think our group has all learned a few things playing together.... first and foremost.... undefended cities may as well not even get built.......

as for civ..... its just like poker...a good bluff is just as good as showing a two ladies

ColdWizard · August 3, 2001, 21:45

Reading over this thread, i just realized that in all of my MP civ games i've never once broken an alliance, peace treaty or even a cease fire... the other guy always hits me first

Rasputin · August 4, 2001, 05:50

Quote:

Originally posted by ColdWizard
Reading over this thread, i just realized that in all of my MP civ games i've never once broken an alliance, peace treaty or even a cease fire... the other guy always hits me first

Me too. I always thought it was conspircay !!!!

SlowwHand · August 4, 2001, 09:52

It's just that you have a streak of honor.

Rasputin · August 4, 2001, 10:08

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
It's just that you have a streak of honor.

matches my streak of brilliant diploamcy in getting the others to attack me i want them to without me havng to deal with any damn senate inquiry...

SlowwHand · August 4, 2001, 10:11

Have you ever noticed how many people seem to think honor is so ....unhonorable ?

I've always wondered what's up with that.

Rasputin · August 4, 2001, 12:44

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Have you ever noticed how many people seem to think honor is so ....unhonorable ?

I've always wondered what's up with that.

Not me i am very honourable ... Most of the time anyway !!!

rah · August 6, 2001, 08:31

Your definition of honor is a bit narrow.

I don't think the people that break peace treaties aren't honorable. Especially reading this thread. Most people seem to expect it. It's a matter of perception. I have a high regard for the integrity of a lot of the people that posted and think a peace treaty is just a temp stoppage of hostility.

It is comforting to see that no one seems to break alliances. (especially since people will remember that

)

This group sound pretty honorable to me.

RAH