How about a "mutual non-aggresion pact" ? - Page 2

Nym · October 11, 2002, 13:17

Quote:

Originally posted by ThaddeusAlexander
It wouldn't be hard at all ... Once the pact is signed, the option to build whatever you decided upon is simply removed from the build list of the players involved. Thus, you simply cannot build it!

Yes, that is the simpliest solution, but you will not be able to "cheat" like in real world.

mattcj · October 11, 2002, 13:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Tiberius
What I want is only to be sure that they won't attack me during my wars with other civs, and nothing more.

I don't quite get it. You want to make sure that the other civ won't attack you. But you've just described a peace treaty. A peace treaty is supposed to make sure that the other civ doesn't attack you.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tiberius
Of course a MPP would still be stronger than a MNAP. Let's say that I sign a MNAP with X and X signs a MPP with Y. If I attack Y, X would declare war to me, despite of the MNAP.

Again, same as a peace treaty.

So what's the point again?

aahz_capone · October 11, 2002, 13:27

Yeah, how would you impliment such a nuklear-disarmament treaty? Or nuklear weapons limmit? The cold wars in civ3 would be a lot better....

Ethelred · October 11, 2002, 13:34

Quote:

Originally posted by mattcj

Again, same as a peace treaty.

So what's the point again?

Peace treaties usually are not subject to the twenty turn rule. What he wants is a peace treaty but with a twenty turn obligation and penalties for breaking it. I think he could get the intended effect, with the present rules, by offering one gold per turn. That would activate the twenty turn obligation.

ThaddeusAlexander · October 11, 2002, 13:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Nym
Yes, that is the simpliest solution, but you will not be able to "cheat" like in real world.

Now you're just getting technical

For game purposes, it would be easy to just keep it simple.

Oh and remind me to never play against you in multiplayer games ... i no longer trust you!

Cheers
~Thadalex

MosesPresley · October 11, 2002, 13:40

You can manipulate a faux non-agression pact.

In the first age or two I will not make any ROP's with any civ. When I'm ready to war against one, I will make an ROP with every civ except for the one I am going to war with. Since I haven't made any ROP's before, the civs always agree. In later ages, this works too, but sometimes the civs demand a token price. This practically guarantees that I will not be fighting any civ except for the one I want to fight.

mattcj · October 11, 2002, 13:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Ethelred
Peace treaties usually are not subject to the twenty turn rule. What he wants is a peace treaty but with a twenty turn obligation and penalties for breaking it. I think he could get the intended effect, with the present rules, by offering one gold per turn. That would activate the twenty turn obligation.

I'm sorry... still sounds like a peace treaty to me. I don't see a difference in having a 20 turn obligation or an unlimited turn obligation. It's still a peace treaty that penalizes you if you break it.

Ethelred · October 11, 2002, 19:44

I agree with you. I was just explaining what he was looking for.

However a peace treaty without at twenty turn obligation deosn't penalize anyone unless they attack without declaring war first. There is no penalty at all for a civ that has a peace treaty with to end the peace treaty which is an automatic declaration of war. Only if they make a sneak attack is there a penalty. There is a larger penalty if they use a ROP to execute the sneak attack.

I find the idea of asking someone to please stop attacking my friend much more usefull and worth bugging Firaxis for. The MNAP seems a tad uneeded since it can be emulated allready.

Prince · October 11, 2002, 20:05

What I would like to do is, instead of helping another civ by teaming up on someone with him, to provide them with information on their enemies. As an example, if I have spy-investigated a city of the Romans, and the Japanese are at war with them, I could provide them with information on their defenses. Or, if I have their territoy map, I want to be able to give it to the Japanese *without* giving them a map of my territory as well. Seeing as it is hard to get any info on other civs when you are at war with them, this would be a nice option, IMO.

Nym · October 12, 2002, 04:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Prince
What I would like to do is, instead of helping another civ by teaming up on someone with him, to provide them with information on their enemies. As an example, if I have spy-investigated a city of the Romans, and the Japanese are at war with them, I could provide them with information on their defenses. Or, if I have their territoy map, I want to be able to give it to the Japanese *without* giving them a map of my territory as well. Seeing as it is hard to get any info on other civs when you are at war with them, this would be a nice option, IMO.

I think that it would be an interesting feature. I often don't care to give an AI's map to another AI (if it would be possible), but I don't do it because I do not want to share my own territory map.

aahz_capone · October 12, 2002, 22:23

I have actually realized that a mnap would not be just a step betweejn "peace" and "alliance". It can be totally separate. Such an assumption shows that two nations tolerate each other. But such a deal may be made with bitter enemies, knowing just that war would tear the world apart if they went against each other or that even though they hate each opther they hate someone else more. To reitterate my previous example in this thread, the two nerds, Hitler and Stalin, really were no where near "alliance" or even peace for that matter. They only needed time away from each other after splitting poland to do other **** (hitler to take france, stalin to purge).

Tiberius · October 14, 2002, 04:42

Quote:

The MNAP seems a tad uneeded since it can be emulated allready.

But I don't want an emulated treaty. I peace treaty is a peace treaty. It is kind of dumb to renegociate it only to make sure that they will get a penalty for attacking me.

A peace treaty means in civ3 "not at war". It is more like a "cease fire" from civ2 and AI civs have no problems in breaking it, so the penalties are probably not that scary. We need an intermediary step. Friendly civs should sign a MNAP, because it is a step farther from war, but it is not an alliance yet. The penalties for breaking it should be much worse than breaking a peace treaty. Other bonuses that I can think of are better trade deals and more easily obtainable RoP and "Military alliance against" treaties. Maybe the MNAP should automatically include a RoP pact. There are endless possibilities to make diplomatic negociatioons more interesting.

You can emulate a lot of things. This doesn't make them interesting and enjoyable, however.

Tattila the Hun · October 14, 2002, 05:23

Here's a few.

Only option in threatening a civ to do my bidding is "give me automobile, and I will not kill you". Ok, good enough. But how about " I will not pay you 10 gpt for automobile, but I will pay 5gpt and promise not to turn you into radioactive dust for automobile".

And where's the "my words are now backed with NUCLEAR WEAPONS!". I miss it.

And one sided right of passage, "I don't need to travel through your territory, but if you wish to travel trough ours, pay me 2gpt (or just "go ahead").

Or one-sided MPP, like France and England had with Poland in 1939.

Has the AI ever given you anything for free?

Workers can be traded, how about military units, like the lend-lease between US and GB in 1940's? "I have 10 surpluss tanks, I could trade them to Vladivostok + 2 workers and 30 gold, how about it?"

Does slavery, using captured workers, hurt your rep?

How is the supression by military units against culture flipping calculate?

Ethelred · October 14, 2002, 11:02

Quote:

Does slavery, using captured workers, hurt your rep?

It affects the attitude of the originating civ of the worker. I don't think it has an effect on your reputation, that is the civ will be annoyed that you have its workers but that won't effect their level of trust.

Quote:

How is the supression by military units against culture flipping calculate?

Culture flipping exposed thread

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...ping+explained

There have been some changes since then.

Culture Flip Formula - somewhat newer

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...ping+explained