Non-aggression pact

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Non-aggression pact

      Good afternoon.
      to be able to maintain a political relationship with a neighboring country AND replace the ceasefire, since it does not have much use.
      The betrayals of an ally can cost the game and ruin the good time, at this moment it is necessary to keep it as an enemy.

      They are one more burden for one and in many cases they take advantage and spy.

      The solution to this problem is to implement a non-aggression pact, for example, every time someone leaves a coalition, a period of 1 or 2 days will be established that can not be attacked and, therefore, gives us time to act.

      If someone wants to establish a pact with any country until a certain day. (obviously with a limit).


      It can be with gold option.
      ¡Vivir con honor, o morir con gloria!, ¡El que sea valiente que me siga!

      Bernado O'Higgins.
    • JavierKing45 wrote:

      Good afternoon.
      to be able to maintain a political relationship with a neighboring country AND replace the ceasefire, since it does not have much use.
      The betrayals of an ally can cost the game and ruin the good time, at this moment it is necessary to keep it as an enemy.

      They are one more burden for one and in many cases they take advantage and spy.

      The solution to this problem is to implement a non-aggression pact, for example, every time someone leaves a coalition, a period of 1 or 2 days will be established that can not be attacked and, therefore, gives us time to act.

      If someone wants to establish a pact with any country until a certain day. (obviously with a limit).


      It can be with gold option.
      I think it is a good idea but has positives and negatives with it.
      For: I think it is more realistic that nations never saw the enemies armies then attacked them in this manner, additionally backstabers are annoying. However (against), it is part of the game, backstabers while annoying is part of this game and while I never have, it is part of the strategy of carefully choosing your ally.

      However, it could be cool for this to be a diplomatic act, e.g you could have 1,2,3 days of Non-aggression in which you could not attack that person. This has the same issues as my previous statement as IRL NAP wasn't binding, just look at the molotov ribbentrop pact.
    • If you implement this, you have to mention what happens if you break the treaty (b/c that would be an option). Maybe breaking a non-aggression pact decreases your morale by 5 points for the next 5 days. Or maybe your manpower production decreases by 10% for the next 5 days. Or maybe just include a stat in the profile to show how many times a player broke a pact that they made. All of these would be workable strategies, the last just wouldn't help immediately.
      "Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster." ~ Sun Tzu, The Art of War

      "War does not determine who is right - only who is left."
    • In real life, non-aggression pacts have been broken. And since allowing these to be broken in game helps the game potentially end sooner, then an option to break them must be available.

      Currently, you can backstab a player and nothing abnormal would happen to you. If you made one of my suggested changes, something would happen which would relate to real life. If you break a promise with another nation as a leader, your people will begin to trust you less, and that WILL affect your nation in some way.
      "Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster." ~ Sun Tzu, The Art of War

      "War does not determine who is right - only who is left."
    • Lukenick wrote:



      Currently, you can backstab a player and nothing abnormal would happen to you. If you made one of my suggested changes, something would happen which would relate to real life. If you break a promise with another nation as a leader, your people will begin to trust you less, and that WILL affect your nation in some way.
      If you break your promise with another nation, in all probability your people will not change their attitude towards you (unless you start losing in some measurable field, be it economy or military). What will happen is that the other nations will treat you without any trust, resulting in fewer and worse treaties, if any treaties remain in effect.

      In game terms, to maintain any kind of analogy, you could say that if you break a treaty then the other nations might cancel their treaties with you, be very skeptical in signing any new treaty, or even declare trade embargo or war. Certainly, I am talking about the automatic behavior of AI - human players will do whatever they want. But even that will have measurable effects in the course of your game.
    • Torpedo28000 wrote:

      backstabers are annoying. However (against), it is part of the game, backstabers while annoying is part of this game and while I never have, it is part of the strategy of carefully choosing your ally.
      And that is how it should be. Diplomacy suffices in the game for this.

      The Soviet Union and Germany also had an agreement not to attack each other. The fight with Germany started for the soviet union by Germany not honering this agreement.

      Cutting the possibility of backstabbing out of the game would ruin the game. It is precisely why you should keep an eye on your enemies to prevent this.

      Tips to keep yourself safe from backstabbing:
      1) force unreliables to share map with you while you do not share map with them (or do). Though if you really do not trust them then you might not want them to see your troops. But they can also not trust you. If they absolutely do not want to share map with you, be aware and ask for the solution below.

      2) Agree to both de-militarize your border and allow each other to check on each other with planes to see if the border is indeed de-militarised. Couple interceptors flying over hurts no one, they can not capture provinces after all. Gives you more reaction time if your enemy does decide to send armies your way. Be on your guard regardless and qlways keep troops outside of their flight range on standby. Spy if needed. If the untrusfull one has a problem with this agreement also, that says enough. Consider this player your enemy.

      Simple as that. Lulling yourself in a sense of security breaks the game. We should not want there to be a stable can not attack agreement in the game. Its unrealistic, unwanted, game breaking. Having to be on your guard is part of the fun in the game.
    • The simplest would be if everyone has to give his consent before another is allowed attack him, and, if consent is denied, the "supplicant" has no attack option ..
      .. then this would be a wonderfully cuddly and peaceful game ..
      .. without any "unforeseeable surprises" ..

      Browser games are an ingenious business idea to lure out money -
      - more or less cleverly camouflaged as a real game sometimes.
      So beware of caltrops, spring-guns and booby traps. :00008185:
      Warning! Texts above this signature may contain traces of irony! :whistling:
    • Occasionally I have gotten myself into an alliance/agreement with someone:
      1) who does not play the game
      2) Makes 1 move a day and sits
      3) Doesn't upgrade their stuff and is a sitting duck for others
      4) am required to early on to keep from being in multiple wars. (self preservation)
      Instead of 'backstabbing' I choose to move my troops to more fertile ground and attempt to better identify allies who can help me win.
      To take someone out without a good reason makes no sense, but there are a lot on instances where it does to me.
    • ike53 wrote:

      To take someone out without a good reason makes no sense, but there are a lot on instances where it does to me.
      To take VP points is always a good reason. If i have an ally that is less active then me and with a smaller army then he is going down. I want allies that are active and have a smaller army. Firstly i will help them, give them advice and instructions. If they don't listen, isn't more active and just doing whatever then i go in for the kill.
      BMfox
      Moderator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh
    • BMfox wrote:

      To take VP points is always a good reason. If i have an ally that is less active then me and with a smaller army then he is going down. I want allies that are active and have a smaller army. Firstly i will help them, give them advice and instructions. If they don't listen, isn't more active and just doing whatever then i go in for the kill.
      To some we are considered 'heartless'...to others 'smart'. I guess it depends on which side of the fence you are on. LOL.
    • I vote for the following:

      New diplomatic status "Peace obligation" between "Shared map" and "Right of way".
      The status does the same as "Right of way". But if you change your diplomatic status to a lower one or give an attack command against that nation, a popup appears saying this action will heavily damage our diplomatic reputation and the morale of our people. Two buttons on the popup:
      "Execute" -> The action is executed, but morale in all your provinces drops by -20. Additionally an article appears in the newspaper telling the world that the ruthless leader Mr. <X> of nation <XY> has broken his peace treaty with nation <XYZ>.
      "Cancel" -> Nothing happens.

      Then after two days in this diplomatic status, it automatically drops to "Right of way".

      Effects:
      * Backstabbing would still be possible, but has a penalty.
      * Players could offer or request a two day peace guarantee in trade offers.


      Possibly not easy to implement, though :| .
    • Hans A. Pils wrote:

      Effects:
      * Backstabbing would still be possible, but has a penalty.
      * Players could offer or request a two day peace guarantee in trade offers.


      Possibly not easy to implement, though :| .
      I'm sorry but I am still not a fan.

      The Germans breaking their agreements with the Soviet Union in WW2 did absolutely nothing to the moral of German people or their army. Quite sure some people were against it but I think it is safe to say that as many, if not more, people were motivated to fight hard and run east than there were people disliking it.

      Surprise attacks give a huge moral boost for the one that executes it since you take far fewer casualties.

      Safety and security is not for a war game.