Alignment Limiting Diplomatic Options of "Attack XYZ"?

Are you sure it's not because they're allied? When two races are allied you will no longer have the option of asking them to attack the other (although you should in my opinion, but the costs should be really out there).

There was no alliance indicated in the foreign relations matrix. I doubt the Drengin and Yor have would be inclined to ally with the Torians and Altarians on their default alignments too.

Perhaps they are too friendly with each other to initiate hostilities?

"Perhaps they are too friendly with each other to initiate hostilities?"

I didn't think that relations other than allied had any effect on that though, although I guess I could be wrong. Every time I've not been able to request an attack I found they were allied, but maybe that's just coincidence.

Whoops, misread the post. Disregard previous comment.

"
Are you sure it's not because they're allied? When two races are allied you will no longer have the option of asking them to attack the other (although you should in my opinion, but the costs should be really out there).
"

Im with you completely on this one- it aggravates me that alliances cannot be broken like this. One more annoying thing; in my game, the Torians were allied with the Altarians, and the Arcaens, and the I-league. This sets up a scenario where the Arcaens could go to war with me, and all 4 would have to come in (Torians because of direct; others through Torians). This isn't particularly appealing; a good friend of a good friend should not be fighting for the first one. Also, Im allied with the I-league as well- if I attack the Torians, who will they go to war with ? I would assume me- but if the Torians attack first, will they join me ?

I've actually noticed restrictions on civs attacking other civs as well. I do not understand the source. In my last game, I was able to get everyone to attack the Drengin, but when I approached the Arcaens, the Drengin were not on their list. No alliance. I don't think they were the same alignment.

Perhaps it had something to do with my relationship with the Arcaens? Do you have to have at least a neurtral relationship with the civ you are bribing?

C&P

Maybe I can clarify. This is what happened to me:

My last game I couldn't get the Altarians to declare war againsta the Arceans TILL I developed a trade route with the Altarians (or actually, they made a traderoute with me). Is this a bug or feature?

bump... I think this is an important topic.

sorry to bump this again, but this is the feature that bugs me the most- the idea that the friend of your friend's friend has to be drawn into a war because you're in it- I think the war declaration should be limited to the race that started it. Thus if the Torians declare war and are allied with the Altarians who are allied with Arcaens who are allied with the I-league, all of them should not be at war; only the Torians and the Altarians. Down the chain, they may ask for help in the form of cash, but not to enter the war itself.

You can't ask the AI to declare war on people they have warm or better relations with.

It's unrealistic to expect that the AI allies will just sit by and watch while you take out their buddies. Did England do that when Germany attacked France? No. It's not going to be any different on a galactic scale.

CariElf,
that's not what I mean. What I do mean is that if the Torians are allied with the Altarians and the torians go to war with me, the Altarians should by all means come along. However, Altarian allies (the I-League for example) should not join in as readily, along with the allies of the I-league (say the Arcaens). The ripple effect should not be there to such an extent.

btw, the French/English comparison holds on validity here- The English were directly allied with the French.

CariElf:

What we need is some feedback regarding the relationship between aliens. Instead of just removing the "Attack XYZ" option, have them tell us why they aren't going to attack someone. In the same principle, some more feedback on alliance proposals would be nice as well, perhaps tribute too (e.g. we cannot pay the full price for this tech, but we can pay XYZ instead).

There is another topic "AI = constant war" which has some similar issues. If two AI's are allied and attacking against you - its very difficult to make peace - you have to make peace with ALL AI's or the party that accepted will redeclare a war on their next turn. Seperate peace deals should be allowed.

agreed.

How many people have found this to be a substantial issue ? I ask because it aggravates me and has the potential to be a huge cheese tactic (make peace every turn and get a lot of cash)...

It's not a cheese issue:

If you're in a military position to extort a lot of cash then the AI will give you ridiculous sums of cash and tech just to make peace,yes.

But, if the AI goes broke, there's no more cash to take. You can only take so much and if you're ahead that much militarily, it's your right of might.

So, maybe you utilise their unwillingness to break alliances to constantly pull them into war and you drive them broke, big deal. If you are so strong to be doing this, you could be just killing them and taking their systems anyhow.

That is total cheese.

"So, maybe you utilise their unwillingness to break alliances to constantly pull them into war and you drive them broke, big deal."

Unwillingness? You make them sound like they are human. It has nothing to do with willingness, it has everything to do with programming. Under those circumstances, the AI is not programmed to break an aliance, which to us seems like common sense, but the AI is simply following its programming and has no choice in the matter. Therefore it is cheese because you are abusing the AI's lack of programming in dealing with that situation.

Look, what I mean is that changing the programming doesn't alter the game or its outcome. If I can afford to keep going to war with 2 or more AIs continuously and know that I can sue for peace, then I'm already so much stronger that what does eliminating the "cheese" actually accomplish?

If A is no longer aligned with B, all that means is you get to flip flop on extorting them until one of them wises up and then you eliminate them and take all their stuff anyhow.

Look, I'd love to see the AI more intelligent about making and breaking alliances in general, but the situation above is like arguing about whether it's better to be shot in the head by a .30-06 or a .45.

Code Monkey,
the point is that once you have paid me a large amount to go to peace, you would not declare war on me in the next turn, especially if I stronger than you. Currently, that is the case, and it lets the human exploit the AI of the weaker race that way. We need to rethink Alliances; as Ive seen, they're never broken by a decision not to go to war, or have this domino effect that get's extremely irritating, even more so when you're trying to make peace.

CariElf,

I bet if Germany attacked France now, England would sure think twice about helping them out .

Citizen BL: LOL

Aadik Shekar: It was my understanding that Za H wanted to know why they didn't show up. That was what my response was directed to, and my AP English teacher taught me to always back up my statements.

The chain reaction/cyclc war declarations behavior is going to have to be looked at.

CariElf,
Im glad we resolved our disagreement. Basically, I wanted the chain reaction/cyclic war to be more realistic, and I think we agree on that...