cascading Mutual Defense treaties (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series



Message

spacht -> cascading Mutual Defense treaties (12/6/2011 3:08:32 PM)

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?



Nedrear -> RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties (12/6/2011 3:46:53 PM)

"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.



Bingeling -> RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties (12/6/2011 3:52:48 PM)

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 [:D]



Cauldyth -> RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties (12/6/2011 4:06:59 PM)

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.



Nedrear -> RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties (12/6/2011 4:12:54 PM)

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.



Bingeling -> RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties (12/6/2011 4:18:36 PM)

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...



Nedrear -> RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties (12/6/2011 4:22:45 PM)


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.



Cauldyth -> RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties (12/6/2011 4:47:48 PM)

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. [:D]



dazoline II -> RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties (12/6/2011 5:02:44 PM)

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.



Grisha -> RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties (12/6/2011 5:39:52 PM)

On the other hand, that's how WWI started [;)]



Bingeling -> RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties (12/6/2011 5:48:50 PM)

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.




madflava13 -> RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties (12/6/2011 5:56:50 PM)

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grisha

On the other hand, that's how WWI started [;)]




Keston -> RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties (12/6/2011 6:59:14 PM)

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.



dazoline II -> RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties (12/7/2011 1:50:28 AM)

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.





Gelatinous Cube -> RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties (12/7/2011 1:56:51 AM)

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.



Cauldyth -> RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties (12/7/2011 2:46:47 AM)


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. [;)]



elliotg -> RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties (12/7/2011 3:17:17 AM)

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.



Nedrear -> RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties (12/7/2011 4:51:33 AM)

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



the1sean -> RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties (12/7/2011 5:18:27 AM)

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.



Keston -> RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties (12/7/2011 5:19:17 AM)

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.



Gelatinous Cube -> RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties (12/7/2011 5:23:40 AM)


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.



Nedrear -> RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties (12/7/2011 5:29:25 AM)

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.



Keston -> RE: cascading Mutual Defense treaties (12/7/2011 7:23:00 AM)

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.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.625