An added "non-aggresion pact" would be nice

Ralf · November 24, 2001, 08:31

First of all: What a fantastic game!!

It really surpasses ALL my expextations. Sure, everything is not 100% perfect - but these additional adjustments are small and easy-to-fix within the realms of future patches and extension-packs. Keep it going, Firaxis

Well, read the subject. An added "non-aggression pact" would be nice. I miss having that option, and I hope they add it in a new-release extension-pack, in the near future.

Ralf · November 24, 2001, 08:45

Added thoughts:

Lets say you establish a "non-agression pact" (the usual 20 turn-format) with, for example, the greeks (who in turn perhaps have a "mutual protection pact" with germans. What happens then if you attacks the germans?.
Well, in above case, the "mutual protection pact" can automatically override the "non-aggression pact". The greeks are free to nullify their non-aggression agreement with you, without diplomatic penalty. But they dont have to, of course. If they however fail to oblige their "mutual protection pact" with the Germans, they gonna face diplomatic repercussions from all Civs.

David Murray · November 24, 2001, 11:24

Non-aggression pact...isn't that the same as a peace treaty?

Or are you referring to an option like "Stop waging war against my ally"?

Ralf · November 24, 2001, 13:36

Quote:

Originally posted by David Murray
Non-aggression pact...isn't that the same as a peace treaty?

No, its not the same thing. A peace-treaty only last "until further notice" in Civ-3, and can be broken at any time. A pact last for at least 20 turns. The "alliance against... pact" requires you to point out a single enemy, and the "mutual protection pact" obliges you to help out your ally.
But sometimes you want to do neither of above. You just want a pact that garantees you (more securely than a peace-treaty can do) that this Civ behind your back vill NOT turn against you for at least 20 turns, while you are buzy dealing with your other enemies.
OK, why not ask him to join you in your fight instead? Well, sometimes a non-agression pact is easier to swallow, for both parts, because it doesnt force neither into personal envolvment, on behalf of the other.

Quote:

Or are you referring to an option like "Stop waging war against my ally"?

No, Im not refeering to that. Read Vengers topic as well: NEEDED - a non-aggression treaty

Venger · November 24, 2001, 13:52

Ralf you ripped off my freaking thread title! Stop hijacking my brilliant ideas people!!!

Of course I see you too share my wise vision of the non-aggression treaty. It protects the AI from itself many times, it also allows both players to lock in security when trading. Trading me oil for my war machine? Yes, you can have 20 turns of non-aggression. Might I just attack you at the end? Yes, but you've had 20 turns to build up your defenses and prepare, and as soon as I pull a fast one, my oil is shut off. A competent AI should be able to defeat me if I pull such a stunt.

You cannot have peace without security. As has been noticed, you can trade your city away, then recapture it, then retrade it... non-aggression treaties as an adjunct to deals can fix this - they should not be a requirement of all deals, but they should be an option that weak civs value in dealing...

Venger