Allow Separate Peace

[DCWhitworth]

I think the allow separate peace check box is not adequate for a PBEM game. In the board game if an ally you were fighting a war against a mutual opponent made peace you would get the opportunity to review the peace before deciding whether to force them to break the alliance.

In EiANW its a single slam-dunk option with no subtlety, it can be exploited by canny opponents because you can *force* a peace by surrendering unconditionally.

I would suggest -

1. The allow separate peace box should be checked by default, not unchecked.
2. There should be two boxes, one for allowing conditional peace, one for unconditional.
3. Ideally the check boxes should be scrapped and an option given in a later phase whether to enforce the alliance break.

[ndrose]

3. Ideally the check boxes should be scrapped and an option given in a later phase whether to enforce the alliance break.

I agree. Is there any reason this couldn't be done in the immediately following reinforcement phase?

[DCWhitworth]

ORIGINAL: ndrose

3. Ideally the check boxes should be scrapped and an option given in a later phase whether to enforce the alliance break.

I agree. Is there any reason this couldn't be done in the immediately following reinforcement phase?

The issue would be that this would be significantly more work to implement I would guess but it would allow a little time for diplomacy in between.

[DCWhitworth]

Actually could the entire peace resolution process be shifted to the reinforcement phase ? You sue for peace in the diplomatic section and then the different nations specify conditional/unconditional and pick options in their reinforcement phases.

At the moment the game suffers from 'stealth' surrenders where a nation that is beset will try surrendering to some or all nations it is fighting in the hope that one or more of them has been careless with their settings.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth


2. There should be two boxes, one for allowing conditional peace, one for unconditional.

I agree with this one. Makes total sense.

[Marshall Ellis]

I'm still a little confused on a few things?

Why 2 check boxes (One for conditional and unconditional). Would one Allow conditional do the same?
A little iffy at moving peace to reinf since no one would get a chance to respond to a possible surrender with his/her forces???

[DCWhitworth]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

I'm still a little confused on a few things?

Why 2 check boxes (One for conditional and unconditional). Would one Allow conditional do the same?
A little iffy at moving peace to reinf since no one would get a chance to respond to a possible surrender with his/her forces???

The idea of the check box is to discourage your allies from making peace with your joint enemy - right ?

However you cannot stop someone surrendering to you unconditionally. So you might want to allow a separate peace to an unconditional surrender but not a conditional because your ally would have specifically had to allow the conditional whereas the unconditional could be forced upon him.

But that still isn't a great solution because your ally could agree top unconditional but that he would pick no options which a beleagued nation might readily agree to.

The whole point of this option is to discourage betrayal by your allies, a check box simply isn't subtle enough for this purpose, two check boxes would be an improvement but only a bit.

Any issues with reinforcement would be countered by the suing for peace being announced in the event log at the end of the diplomacy phase so everyone would see beforehand. And you could have a pop up announcing "Austria suing Spain for peace" at the start of everyone's reinforcement phase so they'd be fully aware of it.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

I'm still a little confused on a few things?

Why 2 check boxes (One for conditional and unconditional). Would one Allow conditional do the same?
A little iffy at moving peace to reinf since no one would get a chance to respond to a possible surrender with his/her forces???

Because you might want to break an alliance if your ally accepts a conditional but not if he accepts an unconditional (since he has no choice really).

[ndrose]

The idea of the check box is to discourage your allies from making peace with your joint enemy - right ?

However you cannot stop someone surrendering to you unconditionally. So you might want to allow a separate peace to an unconditional surrender but not a conditional because your ally would have specifically had to allow the conditional whereas the unconditional could be forced upon him.

But that still isn't a great solution because your ally could agree top unconditional but that he would pick no options which a beleagued nation might readily agree to.

The whole point of this option is to discourage betrayal by your allies, a check box simply isn't subtle enough for this purpose, two check boxes would be an improvement but only a bit.

Any issues with reinforcement would be countered by the suing for peace being announced in the event log at the end of the diplomacy phase so everyone would see beforehand. And you could have a pop up announcing "Austria suing Spain for peace" at the start of everyone's reinforcement phase so they'd be fully aware of it.

This is exactly right, and there's also another reason: as it is now, it can be difficult, even with the best of intentions, to do right by your allies if you are surrendered to, because you have to select your order of conditions ahead of time without knowing whether all, some, or only one ally might be surrendered to. One would generally demand quite different conditions under those various circumstances.

[Jimmer]

"Allowing" peace is for VICTORIOUS allies, not for defeated ones. There should be no penalty when an ally surrenders, regardless of the terms.
 
But, regarding the entries above and thinking strictly of victorious allies, I agree that something needs to be done. It's absurd that an ally can be forced to break the alliance when one accepts an unconditional surrender.
 
So, in the end, there should be exactly one checkbox, but it should only apply to surrenders made by the opponents where ones ally offered a conditional peace.
 
I would support allowing a viewing of conditional terms even with this limitation. One does not break alliances casually, or should not. As an alternative to making it happen in reinforcement (which I would accept, or as a "late diplo sub-phase"), how about making the checkbox conditional on ones ally having chosen one particular surrender condition (say, property or "kill factors").

[ndrose]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

"Allowing" peace is for VICTORIOUS allies, not for defeated ones. There should be no penalty when an ally surrenders, regardless of the terms.

But, regarding the entries above and thinking strictly of victorious allies, I agree that something needs to be done. It's absurd that an ally can be forced to break the alliance when one accepts an unconditional surrender.

So, in the end, there should be exactly one checkbox, but it should only apply to surrenders made by the opponents where ones ally offered a conditional peace.

I would support allowing a viewing of conditional terms even with this limitation. One does not break alliances casually, or should not. As an alternative to making it happen in reinforcement (which I would accept, or as a "late diplo sub-phase"), how about making the checkbox conditional on ones ally having chosen one particular surrender condition (say, property or "kill factors").

Yes, we're talking about victorious allies. That's the only thing under discussion so far as I know.

As I read the original rules, you could force your ally to break the alliance even when he accepted an unconditional peace. I believe the point of this is to prevent him from taking terms like "royal marriage" instead of "remove three corps". If your ally stabs you in the back, it makes sense that there is a political cost.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: ndrose

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

"Allowing" peace is for VICTORIOUS allies, not for defeated ones. There should be no penalty when an ally surrenders, regardless of the terms.

But, regarding the entries above and thinking strictly of victorious allies, I agree that something needs to be done. It's absurd that an ally can be forced to break the alliance when one accepts an unconditional surrender.

So, in the end, there should be exactly one checkbox, but it should only apply to surrenders made by the opponents where ones ally offered a conditional peace.

I would support allowing a viewing of conditional terms even with this limitation. One does not break alliances casually, or should not. As an alternative to making it happen in reinforcement (which I would accept, or as a "late diplo sub-phase"), how about making the checkbox conditional on ones ally having chosen one particular surrender condition (say, property or "kill factors").

Yes, we're talking about victorious allies. That's the only thing under discussion so far as I know.

As I read the original rules, you could force your ally to break the alliance even when he accepted an unconditional peace. I believe the point of this is to prevent him from taking terms like "royal marriage" instead of "remove three corps". If your ally stabs you in the back, it makes sense that there is a political cost.

This is also how I "read" the rules... so one checkbox simply doesn't work.

[Cunctator]

There's no doubt that the rule is related to victorious players only (i.e. if a MP sues for peace he can never be forced to break an alliance, unless he concludes an informal peace).

This is the original rule:
4.4.7 SEPARATE PEACE AND ALLIES: If a major power surrenders to some but remains at war with other major powers, a major power with which war continues may demand that an ally or allies that was a victor in the formal peace immediately break their alliance(s) with the major power still at war (and lose " -2" political points for breaking the alliance). For example, Russia and Austria are allies and are both at war with Prussia. Prussia surrenders to Austria, but not to Russia. The Russian player may demand that Austria break its alliance with Russia. An ally may also demand that an ally that concludes an informal peace with a common enemy break their alliance.

In the current version of this game does it function in this way or not? I don't remember if I ever encountered so far a situation like this.

I hope so or we have another bug here.

C.

[ndrose]

In the current version of this game does it function in this way or not? I don't remember if I ever encountered so far a situation like this.

I hope so or we have another bug here.

As far as I understand, there is no bug in the sense of not functioning as designed (or if there is, that would be a separate problem), but that the way it's designed requires you to decide ahead of time whether to force the alliance break, without knowing what kind of peace and what terms are demanded. If you say "don't allow", then even if your ally accepts only an unconditional, and demands the most punitive terms, including removal of forces, he still has to break the alliance. If you say "allow", then even if your ally accepts a conditional, and makes easy demands, he goes unpunished.

[Marshall Ellis]

I gotta say that I think(?) I understand but it has been this way for probably over a year and I'm just now hearing about this (unless I missed something???) which makes me ask WTH?

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

I gotta say that I think(?) I understand but it has been this way for probably over a year and I'm just now hearing about this (unless I missed something???) which makes me ask WTH?

Well, just over a year.... Um, let's see there Marshall..... oh I know, maybe it's because most games that started a year ago are just now finishing with their first major wars.... ah, yes, that must be it.

[ndrose]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

I gotta say that I think(?) I understand but it has been this way for probably over a year and I'm just now hearing about this (unless I missed something???) which makes me ask WTH?

The fact that we're talking about things that work, but could work better, could be taken as a sign of the progress the game's made!

As NeverMan points out, it takes a while to get this far in pbem. And against the AI, I generally don't bother with allies. (Or if I have them, I don't care what they do.)

I think it might be possible to handle all this with checkboxes, but they'd have to be more thorough in their coverage.

For instance, you could have the "allow separate peace" box, an option to choose "only unconditional", and associated with these boxes listing peace conditions which, if checked, would allow the separate peace only on condition that your ally or allies took those conditions.

In tandem with this, one would need two separate checkbox lists for the peace conditions one demands: one in case of a general surrender, one in case of a targeted surrender, so that you could take what you really want (in rotation with your allies) in the former case, and in the latter case could take what will help your ally (assuming that's what you want to do); the second list should then match what's on your ally's "allow separate peace" conditions list, if you've done your diplomacy right.

It would require more forethought about this matter than was required in the boardgame, but I think it would be workable, and it would not require an extra file exchange or moving the order of play around.

[Mardonius]

Of course, much of this same logic could also be applied to Calling Allies... though that would require sequential callings....

[Marshall Ellis]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

I gotta say that I think(?) I understand but it has been this way for probably over a year and I'm just now hearing about this (unless I missed something???) which makes me ask WTH?

Well, just over a year.... Um, let's see there Marshall..... oh I know, maybe it's because most games that started a year ago are just now finishing with their first major wars.... ah, yes, that must be it.

That's a good answer. I'll accept that!

[DCWhitworth]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

I gotta say that I think(?) I understand but it has been this way for probably over a year and I'm just now hearing about this (unless I missed something???) which makes me ask WTH?

I guess because I'm a pedant who likes to work out how things can be improved

Strictly speaking there is nothing 'wrong' with the current implementation, it mirrors the effects of the boardgame, but this would be an improvement.

Currently I find that many people do not understand the function of this setting and the majority of times when alliances have been broken have been mistakes rather than the intention of the player in question. i.e. Most people are going "Whoops, sorry about that" when it happens.

Since this is player error and not a game bug I guess no one has raised it, however I think it is an area of the game that could be improved since it does not appear to be working out as originally intended, at the least it should *not* be the default option.