Possible glitch in peace negotiations

This has been brought up numerous times. I TOTALLY agree with you. Also note that if you are on the weaker side of things and cant handle fighting two civ's who are aligned.... you cant make peace with one and continue to fight the other as the one you made peace with will redeclare war.

Personally, I think that if the AI keeps getting dragged into wars that it wants nothing to do with, it should re-evaluate the alliance as well. In two seperate games, the Arceans have formed an alliance with the Altarians and Torians, then gone to war with me. In both cases, the Altarians and Torians begged for peace, I let them have it since I had nothing against them, but they got dragged right back into the war because the Arceans would go so far as redeclare war if needed.

There also needs to be a defense-pact form of alliance, where if Player A and Player B are so pacted, Player B going on the offensive against Player C won't trigger the pact. I got tired of Civ3 AIs that as soon as they got an alliance with someone, thought that they were backed up enough that they started picking fights that they couldn't finish, and I occasionally see the same behavior from the GalCiv AI.

Thats another problem. The Alliance should be a defensive alliance not a ticket to start wars. I think:
Alliance should trigger when an unprovoked attack against a member only.

If they wanted they could have two options:

Allied Alliance - Defensive alliance only as mentioned
Axis Alliance - An alliance to declare war that the axis members start

Its cheese to make peace with an AI for techs and cash to know that they will be forced to redeclare war. But what if you honestly tried to stop the war with all parties but the last one refused?

Tony S and Popup Target,
I agree with your statements/suggestions and think this should be a MAJOR priority in optimizing game play because I find that alliance issues/problems often become the centerpiece of strategy, often play out unrealistically, and too frequently determine game outcome (thus compromising the fun factor). :notsure:
Hopefully, Stradock is beginning to give this some serious attention.
Humane

Maybe they should copy the EUII system. Whoever declares war or is declared on is the leader for that war and if peace is made with the leader it's also make with the members of their alliance.

Happened to me too.

All the races were wiped out for me, the Altarians, the Torians, and the Carinoids. I attacked the Torians, and the Altarians (who was allied with both me and the Torians) broke our alliance and declared war on me. After a while, I decide to offer peace treaties to them, do so successfully, push the Turn button, and low and behold, they both redeclare war on me again. Go figure. :notsure:

I threw out a suggestion about this issue here:
http://www.galciv.com/forum.asp?BID=GF&id=53680

Be interested in what others thought of it...

*bump*

Thrull,

These are good suggestions to address a very crippling flaw in gameplay. I simply think that if you unilaterally negotiate a peace it should sever you alliance with races still at war with the party and change your disposition with those races to friendly (rather than close) as a means of preventing you from merely re-establishing an alliance the next turn and repeating the above. As a result, you would need to nurture your relationship with old allies form some number of turns/costs before they would let you back in . On the flip side, I think if you rape a weaker member of a warring alliance for peace, their alliances should likewise be severed automatically so they are not dragged back in the following turn (cheesy). At any rate, I hope Stardock considers these issues for the 1.04 beta as I feel this compromises gameplay immensely. (:(

We're aware of the alliance problems and we'll be looking into them.