rock-paper-scissor

[terje439]

Think a little clearing up would be nice.
This is about diplomacy, espesially about war/peace.
Which of the following ranks higher?

a) Enforced peace treaty
b) Alliance
c) Nation A will DoW enemies of Nation B

Is it a>b>c?

Terje

[Mus]

Enforced alliance wins from what I have seen.

Enforced peace can easily be broken (unless its the type put in automatically after a surrender, thats rock solid), you can cancel anytime and take the glory hit (and loss of a good "word" in the eyes of other players in the case of PBEM).

Nation A will DOW enemies of Nation B can be circumvented by phoney wars where both sides agree privately not to fight, and also you cant be forced to DOW nations you have an enforced alliance with.

[terje439]

It is not about wether it can be broken or not, but this is kinda important during peace settlements (like in our "anther pbem" game were Turkey tried to force me to DoW Preussia and England in a peace settlement). It can easily result in "wasted" victory points.

Terje

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: terje439

It is not about wether it can be broken or not...

Can you rephrase the question then?

I believe the most effective is an enforced alliance. An enforced peace clause can be circumvented or ineffective as can force DOW, resulting in wasted points as you said.

Reason why I thought it was about "broken" treaties is because in the example you used, from Another PBEM, Turkey used surrender points trying to force you to declare war on countries you had enforced alliances with. That cant be done. I was just providing other examples of how you could waste points using the same clause without an enforced alliance (the parties can communicate that they arent really going to fight, just sit there).

Enforced peace that comes from a surrender is solid.

[terje439]

Ok, lets say that I(Austria) have an enforced peace treaty with Turkey due to diplomatic actions, I am also allied with Preussia as well as bound to attack their enemies. Preussia is allied with Russia and bound to attack her enemies. Then Turkey DoWs Russia. This results in a Preussian DoW on Turkey, but do I then DoW Turkey?

Man this gets complicated real fast [:D]

Option A

1. Austria and Turkey enforced peace through diplomatic relations
2. Austria and Preussia allies+attack enemies
3. Preussia and Russia allies+attack enemies
4. Turkey DoWs Russia
5. Preussia DoWs Turkey due to 3+4.
6. Do Austria then DoW Turkey due to 5, or do they do nothing due to 1?

And option B

1. Austria and Turkey attack enemies through peace settlement+enforced peace
2. Austria and Preussia allies+attack enemies
3. Preussia and Russia allies+attack enemies
4. Turkey DoWs Russia
5. Preussia DoWs Turkey due to 3+4
6. Do Austria then DoW Turkey due to 5, DoW Russia but not Preussia due to 1+2 or DoW Preussia and Russia due to 1?

You see how this gets confusing?

Terje

[Mus]

Believe in both cases it says "Austria cannot DOW Turkey due to Treaty X" in the political report and hits you for glory penalty but in Situation A you could pick which treaty to respect. In Option B the enforced peace is hardcoded 18 months after surrender takes place and you would just get nailed for glory penatly until you canceled the mutual defense treaty.

This is my observation from PBEM games, some of it is prepatch so may no longer be valid. I have REPEATEDLY seen treaties designed to force nation A to DOW nation B or force nation A to DOW the enemies of nation C fail in the face of enforced alliances.

I think Mutual Defense treaties are less useful than they appear at first glance. I personally just make alliances with people and the mutual DOWs on enemies is all verbal. I have plenty of alliances in name only in my PBEM games, players who for whatever reason made alliances with me and then sign repeated ceasefire agreements with my enemies. In those cases I just consider that if Im not planning on attacking them, I might as well keep the alliance as it prevents them from immediately attacking me. It effectively gives me an extra round to brace for a surprise attack on their part.

[Anthropoid]

Basically, if you just make peace with everyone and play nice and don't kill anybody it is best [:D]

[terje439]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Basically, if you just make peace with everyone and play nice and don't kill anybody it is best [:D]

But I never INTEND to attack anyone, it is just that everyone keeps taking the provinces I want! [:D]

[lenin]

In my experience, it's rarely worth forcing another player to DOW another or suchlike. Too many conflicting treaty obligations. You are far better off neutering them economically and militarily for having the temerity to attack you!

[Joram]

Remember that the name of the game is glory. If you force someone into breaking one treaty or another, they lose glory. It's not always a big loss but it adds up.

[IronWarrior]

Remember that the name of the game is glory. If you force someone into breaking one treaty or another, they lose glory. It's not always a big loss but it adds up.

Yes! This is what I've been trying to say all along when using the mutual defense treaties. I was trying to simulate the dissolution of the Coalition as happened historically, knowing full well that the countries wouldn't actually fight any battles. I was hoping it would force the surrendering nation to have to choose whether or not to break an existing treaty because of GP loss, but never seemed to work that way. Especially pre-patch where it would backfire and I would be the one who took the massive GP losses. [:D]

(Post-patch the penalties seem too low and can be ignored)

[morganbj]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Basically, if you just make peace with everyone and play nice and don't kill anybody it is best [:D]

Sure, that always works. There are never any predatory countries out there who will clean your clock without provocation, are there? Never heard of such a thing. [8|][:D][:D]