Anyone have any idea what determines the diplomatic outcome of conflicting alliances?
from 
Stardock Forums
Stardock Forums
Example 1: I am allied with the Torians and the Arceans. The Torians declare war on the Arceans. Neither AI comes to me and demands that I fight on their side...
Eventually, though, my senate pops up and makes me go to war against one of them - is there any rationale to who they pick or is it random?\
Example 2: I'm allied to the Altarians who are allied to the Torians. At some point war breaks out between me and the Torians. Sometimes the Altarians will take my side, sometimes they'll take the Torians side - again, is there any rationale to this or is it random?
This is one of the more frustating aspect of alliances because it's impossible as far as I can tell to determine the outcome. In Civ3 there was an admittedly unrealistic tiebreaker, but it was simple and understandable: whoever fires the first shot is the aggressor and will be retaliated against. In this game, it appears to be a pure coin flip.
I can remember one game that had the same setup as my second example. The Altarians had been my allies for 2/3rds of the game. I'd gone to war on their behalf multiple times. We were huge trading partners, etc. They formed an alliance with the Torians and when the Torians declared war on me about 2 months later, the Altarians backed them up. It made no sense either in terms of the diplomatic history or the power balance in that game.
Eventually, though, my senate pops up and makes me go to war against one of them - is there any rationale to who they pick or is it random?\
Example 2: I'm allied to the Altarians who are allied to the Torians. At some point war breaks out between me and the Torians. Sometimes the Altarians will take my side, sometimes they'll take the Torians side - again, is there any rationale to this or is it random?
This is one of the more frustating aspect of alliances because it's impossible as far as I can tell to determine the outcome. In Civ3 there was an admittedly unrealistic tiebreaker, but it was simple and understandable: whoever fires the first shot is the aggressor and will be retaliated against. In this game, it appears to be a pure coin flip.
I can remember one game that had the same setup as my second example. The Altarians had been my allies for 2/3rds of the game. I'd gone to war on their behalf multiple times. We were huge trading partners, etc. They formed an alliance with the Torians and when the Torians declared war on me about 2 months later, the Altarians backed them up. It made no sense either in terms of the diplomatic history or the power balance in that game.
