AGEOD Forums

... the defensive treaty?

I have the following situation:

I'm playing Prussia, and have the usual defensive treaty with Austria that Prussia and Austria start with. At the end of September 1852 Russia declares war on Austria, as they forged a CB before.

So, now I should have a CB to punish the Russkies. But what do I get? That crisis gamble...

I think that this crisis game is a nice idea. But, in all honesty, this is NOT what I want to have when I sign a defensive treaty. So, what is the idea behind that? Is there an idea behind that at all? I think it's completely stupid and counter-productive. A defensive treaty should be exactly that. If I dont want to go to war, I dont make use of the CB the treaty SHOULD give me, for the price of a loss in prestige. If I want to go to war to help my ally, I make use of the CB. But it simply doesn't give me that CB, although it should.

Does the "CB by defensive treaty" just not work as intended, or did you really implement the "brillant" idea of not getting a CB when you should get one?

i fear you are spoiled by the word "allieds" from the 20th century.

even the most intensive relations to a strategical partner did barely lead to a declaration of open war to his enemy, if not with high probability of success in most cases during this era.

If you are a nation with aggressive leader you can DOW anyway,

if it is a historical conflict, events will take care of the war in most cases,

CB will only give you a valid reason, so a "good cause" and relations to others will not suffer..
but a mere reason to fight is not a war, a act of war is not a battle if the opponent already had fled.

For your ideas of extended diplomatic options, some of it is done with a different diplomatic action, from the change log:

[color="Red"]"* More effects for the ‘Show Support’ diplomatic action. Will give you a tiny fraction of the monthly prestige gain from the supported nation, will raise progressively your relationships plus the AI will be aware of supporters before declaring war. If the nation you supported is the target of a DOW, you’ll lose some prestige, plus 25 relationships point with the attacker. You’ll also get a chance to have a committing CB against the attacker (double-edged sword)."[/color]

BTW:

a different problem also exists: getting a scripted CB against a country you have supported, defensive agreement with, or even access rights to... it will also not jsut a switch of peace/war as you maybe desire it...

You also have a defensive treaty with Russia, and they are also your ally - this is why you can't declare war, but it won't stop you taking the prestige hit for not supporting Austria. You need to revoke the treaty with Russia.

Besides in the crisis minigame there is an option really agressive that has the goal to provoke the war.

(I played only a few crisis so I always choose one of the predeterminated options, I don´t select card by card )

sagji wrote:You also have a defensive treaty with Russia, and they are also your ally - this is why you can't declare war, but it won't stop you taking the prestige hit for not supporting Austria. You need to revoke the treaty with Russia.

I dont have a treaty with Russia.

@yellow ribbon:

Thank you for the long explanation, but the problem is - really - short.

If I have a defensive treaty with anyone, and this "anyone" gets DOWed by someone else, I should get a CB against the attacker. This is what the tooltip tells me. CB is CB, it can't be so hard to understand, can't it?

I agree with conch, a defensive alliance isnt worth nothing, its worth a lot, but this game hardly represents this. none of my allies ever declared war on my enemies, even when they declared war (allies include denmark austria ottoman empire sardinia piedmont)

an example of defensive treaty is WW1, isnt it? the germans really wanted to avoid war, but had to join because of treaty.

here its just means they cant attack you, which is no fun. no casus belli, option for direct war, nor the promised loss of prestige in case of failling to declare war within the year.

hello conch,

you originally asked about the logic of the situation, thats the reason for my long explanation!

of course, if a the CB mentioned in the SCRIPTED situation / or by def. treaty there should be a CB forged automatically. AI should to be able to attack you due to a CB either, if it did not, there was a reason.


getting the CB however does not mean to be able to DOW in every case

if a additional (red) text is missing in the log, its another question.
and never forget, most decisions in PON operate on base of probabilities.

As i wrote above, even the modified support action, does not ensure a possible CB/DOW for certainty

*************************************************
Again,

1.) CB is independent of war, it does not consequently mean that you can DOW and is used in game a kind of "hot" diplomatic crisis indicator. worse than bad relations.

2.) CB will be overruled by any positive treaty.

2b) possibly you dont get additional messages in every case informing you about diplomatic actions

3.) to forge a CB you need certain level of imperialism, if dont have it you dont have the decision in diplomatic ledger.
1850s USA get a CB against the Japanese by event, but cannot even start a war, unless Scott is president (seldom, had him once in 7 months)

4.) Possibility to DOW is bound to high level of imperialism/aggressiveness and no existing treaty, as Sagji mentioned

[color="Red"]So, again. If you have the message and there should be one, it does not consequently mean that you could exploit is.Nor that you see it[/color]

if you have a treaty of shared defense it does neither consequently mean that you can attack the enemy of your friend.

otherwise i guess the EVENT character of the game would totally run out of order.
but as beuckelssen said, if you are experienced it is easy to get the AI that unfriendly that they attack you without preparing for it and you can take over momentum...
*******************************
everyone agrees, a lot of modding or volunteers is needed for PON, but if P.X carries on to sell it for free it will never get a break even and the developer will be bound to work on other projects, certainly not being allowed to carry on with PON unless ready with other work...

i am interested in another question, did you have

Mutual Supply and Mutual Passage

during the defensive treaty and after the DOW???

Conch wrote:I dont have a treaty with Russia.

@yellow ribbon:

Thank you for the long explanation, but the problem is - really - short.

If I have a defensive treaty with anyone, and this "anyone" gets DOWed by someone else, I should get a CB against the attacker. This is what the tooltip tells me. CB is CB, it can't be so hard to understand, can't it?

It seems clear as water. It should work like that (as in real life) and if it does not, the only possible reason is poor game design. All other convoluted explanations are simply non sense, IMHO.

Regards

Franciscus,

there are MANY MANY MANY things in PON which make no sense.

in the economy, in the policy, in the military, in the diplomacy and especially in the intercooled AI.
still people keep on to play it.

however, it is not about whether there is a problem, for him it is, obviously, it is about where is does come from...
as i wrote, you can run in many situations you have a CB, dont get any information about it, cant DOW...

[color="Red"]IF he has passage right[/color], he can have his war by defending Austria on Austrian soil, if he has not even this, something is wrong with the treaty/event itself...

[color="Red"] i simply dont see any reason why someone gets a crisis box game AND opportunity to DOW, this is wrong in the first place[/color]

EDIT:

IF i read the fies right, AI can even avoid to declare war to you as an allied of the target nation, maybe thats why you got the crisis box

well, I have passage rights with Austria. But that is not the deal.

I like the crisis management system very much. But, in all respect to the game designers, it just does not "fit" into the situation when war is declared and a defensive treaty is up. Especially not in the case of a Russian-Austrian war, when Prussia has the treaty with Austria. Or any other war between Great Powers.

In the eyes of Prussia, Russia is already fearsome. If it wins the war and cripples Austria, a potential Prussian ally against the russian threat is gone. So it is simply plain logic that Prussia should have the possibility to join the war on Austrias side to contain the Russians ability to go to war vs Prussia in future. That's why Austria and Prussia have the defensive treaty.

The whole reason Prussia and Austria had a defensive treaty back then, was they feared a war against another Great Power, especially France and Russia. So it makes zero sense that Prussia - or any other Great Power for that respect - just gets a crisis event when war breaks out between Great Powers they have a defensive treaty with. Any European Great Power had the "balance of power" in mind back these days, and a successful Russian campaign in Eastern Europe, may it be against Austria for Poland/Hungary, Prussia for Poland, or the Ottomans would mess that balance of power in Eastern Europe.

The crisis event should simply be replaced by the decision of going to war or not doing this, with a huge hit in prestige for the latter. For anything else, like colonial disputes, it's just fine. It would be good if you could prevent the outbreak of hostilities at all via the crisis management, but in the event of a war, imho, all crisis management is wasted effort as the weapons already speak.

" just gets a crisis event when war breaks out between Great Powers they have a defensive treaty"

exactly... thats what i did mean

[color="Red"]it makes no sense to have both.
this is the first thing to get in order, avoiding overlaying action.[/color]

to get the treaty to automatically opening battle is done in few minutes... and if they see the discussion, they will do on their weekends maybe ^^

but this structural overlay of both systems, thats more to worry about