Peace treaties m eaningless?

Being fundamentally incapable of attack is pretty silly, but meaningless treaties are even worse.

Realistic solution: Both sides add X bc to the "pot", and if the treaty is broken, the victim gets the pot. Otherwise, the money goes back to each side when the treaty expires. A 1BC treaty would be symbolic, while a 1000BC treaty would be very meaningful - too expensive to break, or even to make lots of them.

This was historically done by exchanging hostages, but when your empire gets 10 billion new people per year, nobody's really that important.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I like Saber's idea. Although 1000 bc would be a bit small, especially by late game when you can make at least 2000 a turn, with low taxes, if you have a powerful commercial empire. And the exploit would be, you take all the money from a poor empire, force them to attack you by being provocative, cripple their economy, and get more cash to boot. Plus, the AI would need to be scripted. So, a percentage of yearly income would be a better, say 60%. This will keep the poor ones away from you, hoping you will attack them, and really damage the aggresor. 60% of your economy to the enemy, for a year long treaty, I wouldnt touch them. Especially sonce my 2k cap is off, thats something like 54k just handed to them. Although, as I said, scripting it in would be a cow.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Realistic? This isn't poker. Hitler and Stalin didn't put any money into a pot when they signed their non-agression treaty. And having a treaty didn't stop Hitler from attacking Russia once it suited his purposes he broke it at will. It may be annoying, I'm sure Stalin thought so, but making sure your military can handle your enemies (and perhaps your "friends") might be a better strategy than putting your faith in the good will of an AI.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I would like to see a few more diplomatic treaty options myself.

I would like to see something like the above. I would like to see some level of cost associated with kicking off a war of aggression. In my own opinion, Good aligned civs should face a morale penalty for initiating hostilities, espcially against other good races, and certaintly against any race they have at least trade relations with. Neutrals, should suffer a morale hit if they go to war against any civ they have good relations with. Evil civs should probably get a free pass on starting hostilities.

I would also like to see the game impose a massive diplomacy penalty against someone who makes a peace treaty and reneges on it. The morale penalty is one thing, but that is just a local thing. But if you make peace then renege, your basically proving your word is crap, and the other races should be much more suspicious of you. This diplomacy penalty should persist for about a year of game time, unless you manage to get the race you offended / betrayed to forgive you via the diplomacy window (which should be difficult to pay for).

I would like to see non-aggression pacts, which are not alliances, but which are what they sound like (I wont attack you if you dont attack me). And I would like to see cease fire / truce options (no trade, but no further hostilities). And lastly, I would like to see a diplomacy option to request that a given race enforce a trade embargo against someone (should be expensive if that race has strong trade relations with them, but easy if that race is already wary of them).

And lastly, I would like to see an ultimatum option, where you can threaten war, or a trade embargo unless someone complies with your demands (give me tech, give me tribute, attack this 3rd party).

Of course, this would not prevent you from paying a different race to attack your enemy while you honor your cease fire.

END COMMUNICATION

Successfully updated karma reason!

Perhaps have it based around the united planets then?

i.e If you sign a peace treaty, you cannot attack that empire again for 3 months. yes 12 turns. or maybe even 6 months.

and if you break it and attack them. then every member of the UP not allied to you directly declares war on your empire.

makes things a bit more interresting atleast.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I would like to see non-aggression pacts, which are not alliances, but which are what they sound like (I wont attack you if you dont attack me). And I would like to see cease fire / truce options (no trade, but no further hostilities)

I like the idea's you've mentioned, they add a lot of depth to the game. The Truce idea is very good. perhaps have it so that the truce has a time limit agreed upon? i.e like in real wars. where 2 sides agree not to continue the aggression whilst the diplomats work on a formal peace treaty.

so it could last anything from 2 weeks to like 26 weeks. and if the war hasnt been resolved then the truce ends and both empires are once again at war formally.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Other AI should certainly notice if the player is constantly breaking peace treaties. This would have to be tweaked, as people would care less about breaking treaties with people they hate and more regarding people they like, and it should of course fade over time or be bought off. Ideas like 'lolz u cannot attack due to magic Meier crap design' do not belong in a game as organic as GC2. There is a realistic reason not to break treaties - you will find it harder to form treaties in future. Problem solved.

I'd like to see a distinction between 'public' and 'secret' dip actions. It'd be useful to push an 'ally' into breaking the alliance for you - thus avoiding the penalty, and perhaps garnering support from the rest of the galaxy. This wouldn't work if everyone knew you'd been supplying their enemy with starships, money and technology for months.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Yup, I think you need to have 10-12 turns of enforced peace after you sign a peace treaty. Either that or if you declare war on them again, they will never accept peace with you again and you take a decent diplomactic hit with all the other races.

Pot idea doesn't solve the problem at all. I demand 5k BC from the enemy for peace. I put 5k BC into the pot, then I attack and lose 5k BC. I demand 5k from the enemy for peace, etc, etc. This might work if a war is going nowhere on both sides, if one side is winning, then why the mf would the winning side agree to some pot or hostage exchange madness.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I agree there should be some penalty with repeatedly breaking treaties. Does anyone know if there isn't an already built in thing for the AI relating to this? I doubt the guys at Stardock would overlook such and obvious strategy and have the AI not respond to it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Have them take a diplomacy hit,which gradually goes back to what it was before if they stop the cycle.This goes for the human player as well.The more it is done with less turns the more it effects your diplomacy skill.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Yeah, there's an under-the-cover AI diplomacy loss, if you try and backstab them. Plus, they charge more for peace.

And lastly, I would like to see an ultimatum option, where you can threaten war, or a trade embargo unless someone complies with your demands (give me tech, give me tribute, attack this 3rd party).

Yeah, tribute doesn't cut it. I'd love to build a massive trade center with the korx, get their economy somthing like 60% me, and then say "Give me tech or I crush you like a bug, no offense to the Thalans, may they rest in peace

"

I demand 5k BC from the enemy for peace. I put 5k BC into the pot, then I attack and lose 5k BC. I demand 5k from the enemy for peace

Good point when you're having a one on one duel war, but when it's a free for all scrap, the AI's (even if they are far more powerful than you) come running and say "You know, this war, yeh, kind of a cock up. I shot you, you shot me, stuff happens, no hard feelings?". If you're getting your arse kicked, then a % idea would work (what's even 5k to a powerful economy? I like stores of at least 30k just in case), you wouldn't have the resources to fight if you broke it, let alone if you had to pay a penalty. Morale/alignment hit is good too.

Which brings us to

And having a treaty didn't stop Hitler from attacking Russia once it suited his purposes

Hitler was an idiot to think he could do it, especially in the time they planned to do it in. While he may have saved the german economy, smarmed everyone, manipulated everyone by being all wonderful-looking and trading with everyone in the world, he really couldn't plan military on the fly. "Lets march onwards across barren, hostile russian landscape with little clothes! russia's hot right?" Yeh, siberia is toasty "Let's go for Italy, and wear winter gear! Italy's cold right?" Soliders to overheated to reply "Hey look, we've almost eliminated the RAF! lets hold sealion back!"
At least he died at the end of it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

oh, i totally didnt mean we should emulate civ4, i was just stating that was one solution to this exploit. The AI *DOES* use this exploit....but only if you come begging for peace. For example, i made peace with the Degrins, who were kicking my butt. Peace cost a lot, but I was willing to pay for it. 3 turns later (no joke, 3 turns) , they ATTACKED ME!

This happens regularly if you are weaker militarily. The penalty for backstabbing has got to be tweaked i think....

Successfully updated karma reason!

I agree it should have some time limit, and a heavy diplomatic penalty for breaking it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Agreed, there could be both...a pot or several rounds were warfare is impossible. Further breaking a pact should influence your diplomatic rating with other civs.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I know the devs can't comment on every post...but it would be great to hear something from them on this subject

Successfully updated karma reason!

Hmm, did anyone ever patch this? I think it's a great idea to have a peace treaty for a minimum number of turns. One penalty for breaking it could be like a -10% cumulative diplomatic penalty or something like that... ?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Mystikmind

Join Date 06/2004

+20

Realistic? This isn't poker. Hitler and Stalin didn't put any money into a pot when they signed their non-agression treaty. And having a treaty didn't stop Hitler from attacking Russia once it suited his purposes he broke it at will. It may be annoying, I'm sure Stalin thought so, but making sure your military can handle your enemies (and perhaps your "friends") might be a better strategy than putting your faith in the good will of an AI.

Actually Since Stalin decided to execute half (or was it more than half?) his high ranking military personell, severely weakening his country, Hitler got tempted to take advantage of the situation.

So therefore in Galciv, yes if somone become severely weakened, that could be a legitimate reason to break an alliance.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Hi!

For example, i made peace with the Degrins, who were kicking my butt. Peace cost a lot, but I was willing to pay for it. 3 turns later (no joke, 3 turns) , they ATTACKED ME!

Arceans attacked me the very next turn we signed peace treaty.

OFC I felt cheated. 've exterminated them lately with great pleasure.

BR, Iztok

Successfully updated karma reason!

AFAIK in Dark Avatar, the diplomacy contact limits prevent you from immediately breaking treaties.

Successfully updated karma reason!

AFAIK in Dark Avatar, the diplomacy contact limits prevent you from immediately breaking treaties.

I hate to disagree with an Avatar, but the diplomacy contact limit does not prevent you from breaking peace treaties. You don't need to talk to someone to attack on the next turn, you just take an aggressive action (invade or destroy a ship). In fact, not any kind of treaties - if you sell a research treaty and then attack on the next turn, it is gone as well. You do take a "-- they don't trust us" negative diplomacy modifier, however.

The diplomacy contact limits also don't prevent declaring war and signing peace treaties on the same turn, if you are a little clever. If you attack someone you can't talk to THEM on that turn because of the outbreak of hostilities. But, for instance say I attack the Drengin on turn x. I take a few planets, and want to be done fighting. On turn x, or even x+1, the Drengin won't talk to me. But I can sell a peace treaty with the Drengin to say the Korath on turn x. Effect: wars started and stopped simultaneously within one turn.

Hope that helps.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Peace treaties m eaningless?

Everytime I make a peace treaty it can be broken right away