War with allies

from Stardock Forums
I just finished playing my second game where I spent most of the game at war with the Altarians and the Torians, who were allied. Several times after I started winning I got one of the allies would come to me asking for peace, agree to pay a large tribute for a peace treaty, and then the very next turn declare war on me again because I was still at war with their ally. Does anyone else think that this is just wrong? The AI should never agree to pay money and tech for a peace that it knows it can't keep.

What I'd really like to see, in GalCiv2 because I know it's too much of a redesign to be put into this game, is for peace negotiations to be between groups of allies instead of just between two players. As it is it was impossible for the Torians to get an end to that war because they would have had to get peace with me, peace with the Drengin (my allies), peace between me and the Altarians, and peace between the Altarians and the Drengin.
348 views 7 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top
I'd love to see the concept of "truces" implemented, preventing a race (unless you are ready to suffer from a big penalty, for example a huge morale hit) from declaring war to another civilization before a while. The exact duration could be fixed during peace negociations.

There is a "peace treaty" relationship on the Relations screen (corresponding to the green color) but I have seen no reference to it. I think it has not been implemented.
Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top
Agree with the thread starter about the broken nature of AI's signing peace only to be dragged right back into war. There is also the problem of the player signing peace with an almost-dead AI to reap extra goodies, then betraying them and attacking anyway. All manner of ridiculous and exploitive mechanisms available in regard to signing for peace and/or starting wars in this game.

I'd love to see the senate NOT approve certain wars to be started. Currently, that seems to be nothing more than a simple morale check. Surely they had bigger plans for that mechanism at some point?


- Sirian
Galactic Civilizations IV
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top
An alternative would be for an ally to break the alliance in order to ask for a separate peace. This should be simpler to implement?
Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top
Currently no race should ever accept to pay to get a peace treaty. This does not make sense because the agreement is not binding at all. You can betray another civilization just after the peace treaty without big penalties.

That's why I think the concept of peace treaties should be implemented. Instead of sueing for a truce that can be broken at will (especially if you are fighting against allies), you should ask for a peace treaty : longer the duration, higher the price.
Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top
why dont they make it so that the second AI bribes you to make peace with the first AI that you are at war with?

as for peace treaties -why not make it impossible to attack them while the peace treaty is in effect. if an AI offers you 1000 BC for 10 turns of peace, and you accept the offer, it would be impossible to order one of your ships to attack that AI.
Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top
I agree with you : nothing better than a tribute to enforce a peace treaty ;)
Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top
It might be cool if they implemented something like Civ3 has, where your relations go to hell if you start back-stabbing your allies. So, you might get away with it once or twice but after that nobody would ally with you (or your current allies would break their alliances with you based on your devious behavior)