[Tentatively Solved][v1.26n2] War and Peace

[mroyer]

On turn 66, Foreststate and Candle Sigma (both human-player major regimes) were at war with a relationship of zero. Also on turn 66 the minor regime of Azigard (a protectorate of Candle Sigma) asked Foreststate for normalization of borders. The Foreststate player ignored the Azigard request because they planned to attack Azigard that turn (turn 66), which indeed did happen.

The turn was terminated. At the start of turn 67, Foreststate and Candle Sigma are unexpectedly at peace with a relationship of 55. It appears that between the turns Azigard joined Candle Sigma as expected, but also that the ignored normalize-borders decision from Azigard was reassigned to Candle Sigma (a major which should not get that decision). The request was then accepted by a Foreststate underling which apparently brought the two warring majors to peace.

This feels very buggish. I think the Azigard request should have been terminated once at war with Foreststate and not transferred to Candle Sigma.

(Game save-files sent in a separate e-mail.)

Untitled.jpg (291.92 KiB) Viewed 187 times

[Don_Kiyote]

...the ignored normalize-borders decision from Azigard was reassigned to Candle Sigma

If I follow, you seem to have the story about right. But I don't think it's necessary for any borders decision to transfer, exactly.

Its probably a good thing if a decision affecting a minor relationship also affects the relationship with that minor's Protector. So, Your protectorate asks your opponent in war, for peace. Your opponent agrees, and Peace breaks out, with you too! I suppose it could have been a separate Peace, but that's often frowned upon by empires and allies.

The decision would not evaporate just because conditions had changed in-turn; ie. because war had broken out since the beginning of the turn when the decision or request was generated. It must be resolved one way or another.

Bottom line is the the Forestate player should have refused the 'Normalize borders' request rather than trying to save 1pp or just not bothering to think about it.

[mroyer]

Bottom line is the the Forestate player should have refused the 'Normalize borders' request rather than trying to save 1pp or just not bothering to think about it.

Yes, I realize that answering the decision in the first place would have rendered it null. It was very unclear in the moment that ignoring the decision would have such dramatic and unexpected consequences. What's more, after the DoW on the minor Azigard, the decision turned into "not available" and the human player couldn't answer it, yet the non-player underling was able to answer it between turns.

Its probably a good thing if a decision affecting a minor relationship also affects the relationship with that minor's Protector. So, Your protectorate asks your opponent in war, for peace. Your opponent agrees, and Peace breaks out, with you too! I suppose it could have been a separate Peace, but that's often frowned upon by empires and allies.

The decision would not evaporate just because conditions had changed in-turn; ie. because war had broken out since the beginning of the turn when the decision or request was generated. It must be resolved one way or another.

I follow this line of thinking and it does make some sense. I wonder what would have happened to the same situation if the minor regime of Azigard were on it's own (i.e., not a protectorate of a major). If Foreststate player (i.e., me) ignored the decision and attacked Azigard, would the Foreststate non-player underling still be able to answer the decision between turns bringing unexpected peace between Foreststate and Azigard?


-Mark R.

[Vic]

Checking this out next week. If the secretary resolved the "unavailable decision", thats indeed no good.

[Don_Kiyote]

What's more, after the DoW on the minor Azigard, the decision turned into "not available" and the human player couldn't answer it, yet the non-player underling was able to answer it between turns.

wait so Forestate was blocked, during their turn, once they declared War, from answering the decision? As in, locked out?

From Vic's comment, it looks like this was the design intention, good to know, and the problem is just that the Secretary still processed the decision.

The problem with leaving the option open, perhaps, is that it could be exploited. First: declare war, invade, and/or grab some territory, maybe just a few key hexes. Next: answer the decision and re-fix the borders. Finally: leave it up to the country you just invaded to declare War. All in a single turn.

(Vic, if you're reading, I noticed a similar (very small) decision bug with Military Council 'Select Research' decision when the only open option was an Airforce tech, 'Propeller Engines", but the Airforce Council also had their 'Select Research'' decision up. The Military Council decision just displayed a blank between "____" quote marks, but it meant that once a more appropriate tech came up, there was no automatic decision generated.)

[Vic]

I added some protective code for the next build, but actually when i skip through the turns, i cannot repeat the same result. It might be because some of the players are still on version 1.26 , which is quite old.

[mroyer]

Okay, thanks for digging in Vic. Yes, we all try to stay at the same beta level, but often get out of sync. I'll mark this as "tentatively solved".

-Mark R.

[Vic]

The thing is I repeated your instructions with the latest version...

1. First Regime ignores the Normalize Relations request
2. I Skip the next Regime
3. Then everything seems fine.

Can you re-produce the problem from the save file?

In any case I added protective code for the Secretary making decisions upon non-existing regimes (because of join/annex for example).

Best wishes,
Vic

[mroyer]

Can you re-produce the problem from the save file?

I will try. I have all my old saves for each turn so I can back up. It is a multiplayer game though, so I don't think I can "skip the next regime", correct?

-Mark R.