cascading Mutual Defense treaties

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

cascading Mutual Defense treaties

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series >> cascading Mutual Defense treaties

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

cascading Mutual Defense treaties - 12/6/2011 3:08:32 PM

spacht

Posts: 7
Joined: 12/6/2011
Status: offline

Ok, here is the situation that has happened in all my DW:Legends games so far (400 stars, 6x6, 13 empires): I live in peace with all the others, having trade agreements with most of them and mutual defense treaties with two or three. Then one of my partners gets attacked by some insectoids and asks for me to honor my treaty which i do. Said insectoids are fairly isolated in the galactic community but they have one mutual defense agreement and that empire has two more and so on. So when i press that button the game stops for a few seconds, i get flashes of pretty colors in the middle of the screen, my message box gets flooded with Newsnet messages and suddenly i'm at war with half the galaxy, most of them long-term friends. A lot of unlucky freighters go pop but nothing big happens. After a short while all those wars die down again and all pre-war trade agreements are reestablished. One or two game years later the same thing happens again.

Is this WAD? Shouldn't engaging in an offensive war somehow "disable" your mutual defense agreements? I don't remember this kind of behaviour from RotS. Does the Legends AI sign those treaties more easily?

Post #: 1

RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties - 12/6/2011 3:46:53 PM

Nedrear

Posts: 702
Joined: 10/29/2011
Status: offline

"Hm... true..."

A mutual defense pact should only be valued if you are the attacked party. I consider it something like the NATO and not a complete unification of foreign affairs... I guess the error is in a missing security routine checking the cascade. When you join the mutual defense, the enemy empire seems to get the "defender" treatment which makes others join the war in mutual defense. which then makes others join in mutual defense... and so on. This error should be easily rectified by enabling this security check if war war declarec THROUGH a defense pact.
IF it is not working as above, than the current systems seems to be faulty.

_____________________________

One Thread To Guide Them All

"Nothing incorporeal wields such power as a word. Though it is the weapon of the smart and cunning it alas needs the same to prevail."

(in reply to spacht)

Post #: 2

RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties - 12/6/2011 3:52:48 PM

Bingeling

Posts: 5186
Joined: 8/12/2010
Status: offline

My instinct is also that it sees the one answering the pact as an aggressor. Only the receiver of a "declare war" should have the option of calling allies. Attacker and later arrivals due to "ally call" should not have the option.

I would not mind if the AI comes with a trade suggestion to allies, offering nothing at all, about joining war. But in this case the ally should judge its interest in war, and usually reject if the offending part is also a friendly empire. Of course, it may value that spice world more than friendship and accept

(in reply to Nedrear)

Post #: 3

RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties - 12/6/2011 4:06:59 PM

Cauldyth

Posts: 752
Joined: 6/27/2010
Status: offline

It gets complicated if the aggressor doesn't actually declare war though. If they start committing acts of aggression, but force the victim to do the actual declaration of war, then the victim should still be allowed to call in allies. That may be why it's currently implemented the way it is.

(in reply to Bingeling)

Post #: 4

RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties - 12/6/2011 4:12:54 PM

Nedrear

Posts: 702
Joined: 10/29/2011
Status: offline

The easy resolution should be to collect an aggression meter. Who killed more state troops of the other nation in the opposing SoI in the last half year. This would make sure that the aggressor - without declaring war - is the bad guy, as killing military ships in YOUR territory would be regarded ok.

_____________________________

One Thread To Guide Them All

"Nothing incorporeal wields such power as a word. Though it is the weapon of the smart and cunning it alas needs the same to prevail."

(in reply to Cauldyth)

Post #: 5

RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties - 12/6/2011 4:18:36 PM

Bingeling

Posts: 5186
Joined: 8/12/2010
Status: offline

Nice solution for the aggressor meter.

Maybe not a meter, but "who shot first". It gets murky with shots at a mining base outside any SOI, though.

In my last game I took a pot shot at a constructor arriving to build a mine at my new conquest. After war ended. This is maybe solved by the yet unpublished test that he can still build on arrival.

But should this shot trigger me as aggressor if he declared war on me? I did not kill it, just dent its shields to make it run away...

(in reply to Nedrear)

Post #: 6

RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties - 12/6/2011 4:22:45 PM

Nedrear

Posts: 702
Joined: 10/29/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nedrear

killed more state troops

I said killed - or in case of components damaged - and not "bend the shield". We don't count shot but damage. And if it was your territory after the war you would be allowed to shot everything that got no free trade agreement - frighter - or mining rights - constructor - in your sphere.

_____________________________

One Thread To Guide Them All

"Nothing incorporeal wields such power as a word. Though it is the weapon of the smart and cunning it alas needs the same to prevail."

(in reply to Nedrear)

Post #: 7

RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties - 12/6/2011 4:47:48 PM

Cauldyth

Posts: 752
Joined: 6/27/2010
Status: offline

I'd love to see an aggresso-meter, if it could be implemented. Then we could add some espionage missions to manufacture incidents which make it look like the other party committed an act of aggression.

(in reply to Nedrear)

Post #: 8

RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties - 12/6/2011 5:02:44 PM

dazoline II

Posts: 400
Joined: 11/5/2007
Status: offline

The aggression meter is a good thing as war is such a relative thing. I shoot you, you shoot me we can call it a gorilla action.

The way war is implemented now is so WWI ish.
Human: I dare say Gitz you shot my mine to peices that's just not cricket!
Gitz: Ok, I guess I declare war on you.

_____________________________

Moscow by winter? Only if you send Fast Heinz to Kiev.

(in reply to Cauldyth)

Post #: 9

RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties - 12/6/2011 5:39:52 PM

Grisha

Posts: 355
Joined: 5/11/2000
From: Seattle
Status: offline

On the other hand, that's how WWI started

_____________________________

Best regards,
Greg Guerrero

(in reply to spacht)

Post #: 10

RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties - 12/6/2011 5:48:50 PM

Bingeling

Posts: 5186
Joined: 8/12/2010
Status: offline

But a bit like how WWII started for USA. Mostly because the Japanese messed up, but... They were supposed to deliver the declaration of war a few minutes before the Pearl Harbor raid, but messed up.

And I seem to remember that there was some fake attacks going on which were used as an excuse in the attack on Poland that started the whole WWII thing.

(in reply to Grisha)

Post #: 11

RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties - 12/6/2011 5:56:50 PM

madflava13

Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline

Seems like it's WAD to me....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grisha

On the other hand, that's how WWI started

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to Grisha)

Post #: 12

RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties - 12/6/2011 6:59:14 PM

Keston

Posts: 300
Joined: 5/7/2010
Status: offline

The Pearl Harbor example is a good one. As many will recall from the video clip of Roosevelt's speech, it was not a declaration opening a war nor a recognition or acceptance of the Japanese Declaration of War (which was delivered late, in violation of international law) but a declarataion that since the "unprovoked and dastardly attack" itself a state of war had existed between the United States and the Empire of Japan, emphasizing that the Japanese had commenced war without a prior declaration.

Under international law, a declaration should be either an expresss reasoned declaration (i.e., stating casus belli) or an ultimatum (if you don't do ___________, then we are at war). Who declares the war and who is the substantive aggressor are separate questions. Each party to a military treaty will interpret the facts it is aware of under that treaty, which it sounds like the powers in game may do.

(in reply to madflava13)

Post #: 13

RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties - 12/7/2011 1:50:28 AM

dazoline II

Posts: 400
Joined: 11/5/2007
Status: offline

But there is no law in intergalactic space so why bother declaring war when you have no frame of reference i.e. "no relationship" or laws with the other power. Look at the Zulu wars with Great Britian, just straight up fighting no declarations.

My apologies for hijacking the thread.

I think the aggression meter is a good thing as it provides a a shade of grey by showing an escalation in fighting instead of a black and white "we're at war | we're not ar war".

I find most of my wars start this way with individual ships slugging it out, bases getting wiped and then small fleets clash then big ones, then someone loses a colony and the fun begins. And then... O yea I guess I should formally tell my opposition I'm at war with them. Na let them figure it out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keston

Under international law, a declaration should be either an expresss reasoned declaration (i.e., stating casus belli) or an ultimatum (if you don't do ___________, then we are at war). Who declares the war and who is the substantive aggressor are separate questions. Each party to a military treaty will interpret the facts it is aware of under that treaty, which it sounds like the powers in game may do.

_____________________________

Moscow by winter? Only if you send Fast Heinz to Kiev.

(in reply to Keston)

Post #: 14

RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties - 12/7/2011 1:56:51 AM

Gelatinous Cube

Posts: 696
Joined: 10/26/2011
Status: offline

One of the great things about sci-fi is that we can assume how things might work. There's no point trying to bring out precedence, here.

That said, combat in DW has always been very dirty, furious, and bloody. A WWII style blitzkrieg is possible but hard. Simply massing everything on the front line and pushing forward is the most viable strategy. Will this likely be the case if we are ever in space, surrounded by space empires? Who knows.

For the most part the DW universe assumes that all the races have similar ideas on morality. There are cultural speedbumps, but in the end it becomes either a galactic village or a galactic meat-grinder. This is something I rather like.

Agression Meter, though, is a very good idea. In fact, just making it easier to have complicated treaties and relations as a whole would be nice. Of course, I'd like to see a complete overhaul of the diplomatic system to something far more consequential, ala EU3 or Victoria 2. But that's likely just me.

(in reply to dazoline II)

Post #: 15

RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties - 12/7/2011 2:46:47 AM

Cauldyth

Posts: 752
Joined: 6/27/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gelatinous Cube
Of course, I'd like to see a complete overhaul of the diplomatic system to something far more consequential, ala EU3 or Victoria 2. But that's likely just me.

No, not just you.

(in reply to Gelatinous Cube)

Post #: 16

RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties - 12/7/2011 3:17:17 AM

elliotg

Posts: 3597
Joined: 9/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spacht
Ok, here is the situation that has happened in all my DW:Legends games so far (400 stars, 6x6, 13 empires): I live in peace with all the others, having trade agreements with most of them and mutual defense treaties with two or three. Then one of my partners gets attacked by some insectoids and asks for me to honor my treaty which i do. Said insectoids are fairly isolated in the galactic community but they have one mutual defense agreement and that empire has two more and so on. So when i press that button the game stops for a few seconds, i get flashes of pretty colors in the middle of the screen, my message box gets flooded with Newsnet messages and suddenly i'm at war with half the galaxy, most of them long-term friends. A lot of unlucky freighters go pop but nothing big happens. After a short while all those wars die down again and all pre-war trade agreements are reestablished. One or two game years later the same thing happens again.

Is this WAD? Shouldn't engaging in an offensive war somehow "disable" your mutual defense agreements? I don't remember this kind of behaviour from RotS. Does the Legends AI sign those treaties more easily?

Thanks for the report. This is fixed in the next update: honoring Mutual Defense Pacts or Protectorates through declaring war on the attacking empire will no longer start other wars with third-party empires.

(in reply to spacht)

Post #: 17

RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties - 12/7/2011 4:51:33 AM

Nedrear

Posts: 702
Joined: 10/29/2011
Status: offline

Elliot please consider the aggression meter to determine a righteous war in a potential future expansion.

_____________________________

One Thread To Guide Them All

"Nothing incorporeal wields such power as a word. Though it is the weapon of the smart and cunning it alas needs the same to prevail."

(in reply to elliotg)

Post #: 18

RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties - 12/7/2011 5:18:27 AM

the1sean

Posts: 854
Joined: 5/11/2010
From: Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bingeling

Maybe not a meter, but "who shot first"...

Han shot first! It was "the shot heard 'round the galaxy'.

Seriously though, I think this is working as designed, but now that the AI's are way better at diplomacy you can get some awesome wars going one.

The aggression meter is an interesting idea, but it is an issue that is actually already addressed by the reputation level of different empires.

In the end I suggest that maybe there needs to be a separate treaty called "Alliance", where even in offensive situations Declaration of War is expected from your allies.

_____________________________

Check out my GAMEPLAY REDUX MOD (ROTS)

(in reply to Bingeling)

Post #: 19

RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties - 12/7/2011 5:19:17 AM

Keston

Posts: 300
Joined: 5/7/2010
Status: offline

It's not just precedent, it's about the nature of potential interactions between sentient races/species. Any non-violent engagement betwen alien star nations, whether on terms of equality or submission, would also require development of protocols and a bias against third parties who disrupt the arrangement.

The mechanics of the relationship and diplomatic systems in the game pre-suppose some interstellar diplomatic norms along these lines and concepts of an appropriate war - this happens to align with concepts from Terran history, but other species might have even more formalized protocols (or laws) of war and peace.

One could of course assume a galaxy where weakness is despised and strength contested in a relentless permanent war of one against all or all against all, but that is rather two-dimensional and less fun beyond the military dimension. The players of this game being of human origin, they'll want some opportunity to make deals and thus engage in diplomacy.

(in reply to Nedrear)

Post #: 20

RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties - 12/7/2011 5:23:40 AM

Gelatinous Cube

Posts: 696
Joined: 10/26/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keston

It's not just precedent, it's about the nature of potential interactions between sentient races/species. Any non-violent engagement betwen alien star nations, whether on terms of equality or submission, would also require development of protocols and a bias against third parties who disrupt the arrangement.

The mechanics of the relationship and diplomatic systems in the game pre-suppose some interstellar diplomatic norms along these lines and concepts of an appropriate war - this happens to align with concepts from Terran history, but other species might have even more formalized protocols (or laws) of war and peace.

One could of course assume a galaxy where weakness is despised and strength contested in a relentless permanent war of one against all or all against all, but that is rather two-dimensional and less fun beyond the military dimension. The players of this game being of human origin, they'll want some opportunity to make deals and thus engage in diplomacy.

I agree. But I also think the game already accounts for that. If you have a game that is 8 Boskaran Empires, 2 Sluken Empires, and 3 Human Empires, it's going to be a very atypical place.

(in reply to Keston)

Post #: 21

RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties - 12/7/2011 5:29:25 AM

Nedrear

Posts: 702
Joined: 10/29/2011
Status: offline

Sean the current diplomacy system does not include the military aspect above "shot first" or "intruded enemy space". These things will hit your reputation at such yes, but the first part "shot first" should be ignored if you defend YOUR space.
If e.g. a frighter without a trade agreement thinks he can buy your fuel or a constructor without mining rights feels nice building in your system - should be fixed now - or military ships running wild in your sphere you should be allowed to shot them WITHOUT declaring war, all the while beeing unshaken in your reputation. It is an act of territorial defense.

_____________________________

One Thread To Guide Them All

"Nothing incorporeal wields such power as a word. Though it is the weapon of the smart and cunning it alas needs the same to prevail."

(in reply to Gelatinous Cube)

Post #: 22

RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties - 12/7/2011 7:23:00 AM

Keston

Posts: 300
Joined: 5/7/2010
Status: offline

Getting in their way or a shot shot across the bow to warn them off makes a less provocative statement that is still understood in all languages.

Question - If a shot is taken, and the opposing craft flees (as many are programmed to do), does the warship during peacetime let them go or hunt them down?

Those two approaches are also fairly clear cross-culturally, though to the Klackons (I mean Boskara) taking one shot and not pursuing is an act of weakness inviting an overwhelming aggressive response to take advantage.

(in reply to Nedrear)

Post #: 23