GC 1.2 Alliance Gripe

from Stardock Forums
I stepped away from earlier GC versions because of the following alliance problem:
War starts with race A; Race B enters war because of alliance with race A; I negotiate peace with either race A or B; Race with negotiated peace re-enters war 1 turn later because of Alliance.
I've suggested time and again that if a peace is negotiated with a race that should automatically break their alliance with other races still at war with you (otherwise it is impossible to get out of wars with multiple races who have alliances with one another).
I hoped to God that GC 1.2 might have addressed this obvious alliance problem but once again I got buthered by 3 races with interlocking alliances despite my successful efforts to negotiate peace with 1 or 2 of them.
I know GC updates are finished with 1.2 so I plead with the developers to consider these issues for GC2 since this problem destroys the fun.
Humane >:(
407 views 19 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top
otherwise it is impossible to get out of wars with multiple races who have alliances with one another.
End of quote

Why aren't you trying to obtain peace from all races that are allied?
I feel it normal that if an alliance partner is in a war, the other are obligated to enter the war. Now, if there is a way to break an AI alliance ...

Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top
I've complained about this as well, but I've noticed under 1.2 and AP beta that it's not all that automatic anymore. I've been at war with one of the allies for several turns, and his ally has not done a thing (at least directly). My feeling is that it is definetly better now. I think it is more a matther of relative force now.
The Political Machine 2024
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top
Why aren't you trying to obtain peace from all races that are allied?

Mainly because peace costs money, tech, etc and I do not always have enough resources to make peace with 2 - 5 races that are all aligned against me (but if I could reduce the pressure by making peace with 1 or 2, then I might stand a chance against the others). I just find it very unrealistic that a race could agree to peace and then declare war on you the following turn. A peace treaty should forfeit that races alliances with other races still at war with you.

Humane
Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top
I just find it very unrealistic that a race could agree to peace and then declare war on you the following turn.
End of quote


Why the AI shouldn't be allowed to backstab you :) ?
Just a question: do you initiate war or is it the AI that first declare war?
Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top
I see this as smart AI thinking. You want to make peace with me? Sure thing. It'll cost you xyz.

What Mr. Ally? You'll break your alliance if I don't get back to work and go to war? Sure thing Mr. Ally.

:)
Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top
So the AI is exploiting a bug? I can't say I like that theory very much. :D

I really like the idea that I had in this thread: http://www.galciv.com/forum.asp?BID=GF&id=112114#112314 , which was to have peace negotiations be between groups of allies, not just two civs at a time. Huge redesign, but something to keep in mind for GalCiv2 if anyone from Stardock is listening.

Since that's not feasible, a second option is for you to negotiate with one of your enemies and he negotiates with his allies using the "Make Peace..." diplomatic option (his price, of course, will be much higher as it includes what he passes on to his allies).

I can's say I much like the option of having a peace treaty include the breaking of an alliance. Seems to exploitable. I'm sure there's a reason there's currently no way to do that.

~SDC~
Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top
I can's say I much like the option of having a peace treaty include the breaking of an alliance
End of quote


PJ, they would not have to break an alliance. They could do what the human council does when you are allied to two AIs and they go to war - you stay neutral. So, if you make peace with one of the AIs and the other opts to carry on the war, the AI tha made peace could remain neutral. The neutrality might cost something abit more, since they really don't have an alliance with you, but that would be easy to work out in the program and it could be part of the negotiations with the AI. For example, so much bc for peace and so much bc for neutrality for x months.
Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top
But even so, you can have peace, and the people demand that you go back to aid your ally in war. What do you do? You can 1)go back to war, or 2)break the alliance. How many times have you broken an alliance? I thought so.
Reply #9 from Stardock Forums Top
You're right about that, allies shouldn't be very pleased with you if you agree not to help them. In this case I think you would be required to support your allies in some other way (financially or by providing ships) in order to keep the alliance. That kind of violates the spirt of your neutrality agreement, though.

~SDC~
Reply #10 from Stardock Forums Top
And so we arrive at the impasse over the original question. Race A&B allied. You make peace with A, but B is too powerful, you remain at war. Next turn, Race A returns to war with you. Is this wrong? I say no it is not. I think Race A was just as intimidated at B as Humane was.
Reply #11 from Stardock Forums Top
How about a period of enforced peace, as part of the negotiation for a peace treaty? In other words, when you sign a treaty, you agree to end all hostilities for a fixed period of time, and you simply can't declare war again before that time expires.

Alternately, you could implement the enforced peace as a UP law, so that if you really wanted to break it you could, but only by leaving the UP.

The AI would be coded to recognize this when it considers alliance obligations, so you may take a hit in relations with your ally for negotiating a separate peace in the first place (it is kind of a scummy thing to do), but they wouldn't try to demand that you violate the agreement.
Reply #12 from Stardock Forums Top
And so we arrive at the impasse over the original question. Race A&B allied. You make peace with A, but B is too powerful, you remain at war. Next turn, Race A returns to war with you. Is this wrong? I say no it is not. I think Race A was just as intimidated at B as Humane was.
End of quote


If this is the case then A should simply refuse to make peace with you. Put up a message on the diplomacy screen saying "B would not be pleased if we made peace with you. Negotiate with them first." Just like when you try to pay a weak race to make peace with a stronger race.

The AI would be coded to recognize this when it considers alliance obligations, so you may take a hit in relations with your ally for negotiating a separate peace in the first place (it is kind of a scummy thing to do), but they wouldn't try to demand that you violate the agreement.
End of quote


A relations hit with an ally wouldn't mean anything, since the AI never breaks alliances. In fact, "Ally" is just the highest level of relations. If relations went down they wouldn't be allied anymore.

~SDC~
Reply #13 from Stardock Forums Top
Alternately, you could implement the enforced peace as a UP law, so that if you really wanted to break it you could, but only by leaving the UP.
End of quote


I think that there is already an UP law corresponding to a galactic ceasefire.
Reply #14 from Stardock Forums Top
How about a period of enforced peace, as part of the negotiation for a peace treaty?
End of quote

I think something of this sort is definitely needed for GalCiv2. Human players abuse the honour system a lot more than the AIs. An AI will give you all its money and tech for peace when it's on the verge of destruction, and then you can just conquer it anyway, with no penalties, not even a reputation for dishonour.

~SDC~
Reply #15 from Stardock Forums Top
Civ3 at least had the dishonor trait. If you conquered someone after abusing the AI the next civilization would be less likely to deal with you. You would get a message to the effect that they heard what you did to "so and so" and that they would not fall for it too.
Reply #16 from Stardock Forums Top
Good point Matt. This peace/alliance problem works both ways and cheesers often exploit the AI for a cheap win. At any rate, I feel addressing this issue in some capacity should be considered for GC2. Alot of good suggestions have been put forward in this thread but I don't pretend to know the best answer.

Humane
Reply #17 from Stardock Forums Top
An AI will give you all its money and tech for peace when it's on the verge of destruction, and then you can just conquer it anyway, with no penalties, not even a reputation for dishonour.
End of quote


Doing this type of exploit should carry a penalty.
[Message Edited]
Reply #18 from Stardock Forums Top
Doing this type of exploit should carry a penalty
End of quote


Well, let's not be so noble that we allow those aliens to get away with stuff that you can't. In my last game, they flipped my planet, then demanded that I had over my SB next to the planet, then demanded that I remove my ships from "their" sector.

No sure how this any different than taking their money first and then their planet. :sniff!: :sniff!: :sniff!:
Reply #19 from Stardock Forums Top
Well, let's not be so noble that we allow those aliens to get away with stuff that you can't. In my last game, they flipped my planet, then demanded that I had over my SB next to the planet, then demanded that I remove my ships from "their" sector.

No sure how this any different than taking their money first and then their planet.
End of quote


Actually, your example is pretty reasonable in terms of diplomacy. They may have acquired the planet in a sneaky way, but then saying 'It's ours now, get your ships away from it.' doesn't sound at all unrealistic... :)

On the other hand, it's true that there's no sense implementing rules that restrict the human player, but not the AI.

This is why I don't think that penalties for violating peace treaties are enough. For one thing, by the time you've racked up enough penalties to matter, you've already wiped out 2 or 3 other majors. Who cares about diplomacy at that point?

For another, if you allow people to continue breaking treaties, but impose a diplo penalty for doing so, there's a very good chance the AI won't be able to evaluate the costs properly, and will continue abusing treaties, putting itself into a hopeless diplomatic position with other races. The human player then simply steps in and cleans up the mess.

Might as well call it 'Galactic Peacekeeping'... ;)