More Diplomatic options between alliances

I think the current options for diplomatic relationships between alliances are war, peace, NAP, and Confederation. Could we have some other options that would make the relationships between alliances more varied and clear?

I'd like "Mutual Defense Treaty" added to the options. It would be for alliances who will help their treaty partners defend their cities against sieges and attacks, but they are not bound to join in the treaty partner's offense or wars.

And maybe change NAP to Non-Aggression Pact so newbies know what it means without having to ask.

Anyone have other ideas of treaties or relationships to add? Beyond Mutual Loathing as one short of War.


Edited by Mara Zira - 10 Oct 2011 at 18:30

Hi Mara,

intor wrote: Shared Intelligence Treaty - Basically gives you access to each other's Diplo visibility and/or prevents diplomatic units from being able to carry out aggressive actions against anyone with whom you have this treaty. Once it's possible for us to station diplomatic units, could also mean that diplomatic units from anyone with whom you have this treaty, currently present in your cities, would help defend you.

Good ideas, but I especially like what this one implies. It'd be great if everyone in the same alliance, or even in confederated alliances, could share diplomatic visibility fields. Or at least that you could "use" an alliance mate's diplomatic visibility range on cities where their range overlapped yours. Same with your own cities where their ranges overlap, so you'd see the incoming diplomat in the targeted city just as soon as it passed by your outermost "linked" city. Then there would be a huge advantage to being in an alliance, and for the alliance members to be relatively close together, and to keep your own cities in hubs...

Any idea how long before we can at least declare Mutual Defense Pacts? It'd be nice if we got it now instead of when the whle automatic-pull-in system is in place....

I've been thinking it over a bit, and I'd suggest adding Aggression to your list if you're going to automate things like you said.

War -> Aggression -> Truce -> Neutrality -> NAP -> MDP (Mutual Defence Pact) -> Confederation

Aggression would be for limited warfare situations, like an alliance against one or two players of another alliance. Aggression status wouldn't pull the alliances in confederation or MDP with either alliance into the warfare unless they manually decided to do so. Of course, the alliance that has had Aggression declared against them can always upgrade it by declaring War back, but I think it would also need to be automatically upgraded to War from the declarer's side if someone they are in Confederation with also declares Aggression on the same alliance. (As in, we don't want multiple people on one side doing Aggression to trick the other into being the one to declare War so their MDP won't kick in).

Anyway, tying this into my previous post, if MDP alliances automatically declare Aggression (instead of War) when the primary alliance has War declared against it, then the MDP alliance's Confeds and MDPs wouldn't automatically declare War or Aggression. The chain reaction would stop with the alliance declaring Aggression. The others could join in if they wanted to, but declaring War wouldn't automatically cause a global war involving everyone whether they were wanted and needed or not.

Can you clarify what happens when Alliance A and Alliance B (who are both Confederated with Alliance C) declare war on one another.  Does alliance C drop into neutral, or does it show up to them as being at war with both Alliance A and B?  (0.o)