A diplomatic game flaw

Smallpox vs. largepox, gen2 vs gen5, early war vs. peaceful alliances. Which is your favourite gaming style?
User avatar
Posts: 1133
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 11:13 pm

A diplomatic game flaw

Postby Corbeau » Fri Nov 21, 2014 2:07 pm

We just encountered a situation in the game that is highly illogical and could be considered an abuse if there was any doubt that it was made deliberately. However, it isn't and we're stuck at something impossible. I won't discuss the exact situation because it's not clear-cut and it has its specifics, but offer a very similar and easily achieved one.

Suppose we have two neighbouring nations, A and B, who decide they don't want to go to war with each other and make peace. Also, they don't create an alliance because one or both of them are already in an alliance with third parties, making peace with everybody would require a massive exchange of diplomats etc. etc. Anyway, there is really no *need* for an alliance, simply, staying on good terms is enough.

Eventually, both players switch to democracy.

And then, at one point, a player C attacks them both. Now, with A and B being at peace, player A can't attack C's units in B's territory and, symetrically, player B can't attack C's units in A's territory. So, in 50% of the cases, C's units are 100% safe while they are free to attack everything in range.

Also, they can't drop peace because they are in Democracy and can't drop Democracy because it would make their nations a mess and vulnerable to subversion attacks which is something you don't want in the middle of the war. Also, they can't form an alliance because they have other allies without embassies with the other party (therefore, officially at "war"

I believe this shows how much the current diplomatic system is seriously flawed and should be fixed... somehow. Firstly, the default state of nations when they make contact sholdn't be "war", it should be "null". OR, being at war shouldn't prevent other people to make alliance. But I believe the first solution is much more logical and realistic.

Also, there should be more diplomatic stances. At least one more: allowing other people's units to enter your territory without having to create an alliance or go to war. Quite enough historic examples to justify this. Others come to mind, such as "vassalage", but that's not the topic here.
Last edited by Corbeau on Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
* Freeciv LongTurn, a community of one-turn-per-day players and developers
* Longturn blog!
* Longturn Discord server; real-time chatting, discussing, quarrelling, trolling, gaslighting...

Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:13 pm
Location: Huelva, Spain

Re: A diplomatic game flaw

Postby ifaesfu » Mon Nov 24, 2014 1:00 pm

The situation is a pain in the ass, but it is normal. If you are in peace with another nation, you shouldn't have any military unit in its territory. You should have thought twice before making peace and then switching to Democracy. What you are suggesting should be in the wishtlist section of the forum, because the diplomatic issue you describe is well known.
About the suggestion itself, well I don't like those new diplomatic states if they don't have a compensation, as they would be intended only for making diplomatic changes easier. For example, if one nation want to be a vassal, then this nation or/and its owner one should have higher corruption/waste rates.

Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2015 7:21 pm

Re: A diplomatic game flaw

Postby BrentBoyer » Sun Apr 12, 2015 7:58 pm

Ideas on nations A,B,C issue. If im B and Nation A is at peace , C is on my land, C is My problem. The land is my sovereign right. A can become a ally, A can declare war, A can bribe the unit, or A can prepare for when C is available. The reason you and many other players do not like the option is because u are dealing with politics. What i do is send soft targets of mine out with D-units, or zone my land with forts to take advantage of the unit C not able to advance because he is already touching a hostile unit. If you dont care for meeting a neighbor half way in cumbersome politics and its your way or the highway, then you made a diplomatic plan. Invade preemptively.*If your mouse doesnt let you bump the C unit, use your number pad that works on my laptop.
You have good points.
This game is simple in politics but oddly not. As you say, unDemocracying (I got that word from George W) is a mess. build the statue of liberty.
Nations shouldnt be at war on encounter. When u play with 50 AI its impossible to ever have a stable ally and create cease fires.
I understand the simplistic evolution of this game, as in, DOS in 1991 until today. its empire vs empire basic.
Like you, I would love to see minor nations. like mixing Civ1 with Imperialism2
what i dont get, is even when there is a option for group victory. why do your allies declare war in space race.
when i play this game i can get a little hot. but if i sit back and smoke, sip, chill. it is strategically balanced for all personality types to play. Thats not easy to do .
hope i added to your thoughts.

Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: A diplomatic game flaw

Postby ahfretheim » Sun Nov 22, 2015 8:47 pm

You might just need to switch out of democracy man. I've had games where a Communist Revolution occurred because of a similar diplomatic situation.

Posts: 1918
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 6:54 pm

Re: A diplomatic game flaw

Postby cazfi » Sun Nov 22, 2015 8:58 pm

allowing other people's units to enter your territory without having to create an alliance

What we then need Alliance in the game for? Certainly nobody is going to use it (at least if they know what they are doing) if the only benefit of an alliance is otherwise available without the negative side.

The Square Cow
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2014 5:47 pm

Re: A diplomatic game flaw

Postby The Square Cow » Sat Jan 16, 2016 12:26 am

If the AI would treat enemies-of-their-enemies as friends and friends-of-friends as friends, then the problem would resolve because nation A and nation B could ally more likely. The world would tend to become two large alliances fighting to the death.