How do you declare war when you've got a non-aggression pact? Declare war is grayed out...

Wait 99 turns seasons since you signed it.

i think this needs to be fixed.  99 turns is too long for a non-aggression pact.  it should be like 30 at most.  either that or we need another way to "sneak" into enemy territory without declaring war.  Possible options:

a ) Invisibility spell

b ) Trespassing doesn't cause war, but does cause a negative diplomacy hit

c ) New unit with spying ability

Derek, is this on your list of things to modify?

Personally, I'd prefer to stablish with the AI for how long we want it to last. Not saying no to "spy/ninja/ranger" units doing "tricks" about it.

I agree, 99 seasons is too long when your just signing for the right to pass through their lands.  Much can happen in that time.  A distant opponent has plenty of time to come squat a city right on top of your road network etc.  I'd like to see a right-of-passage agreement be seperate from the non-aggression treaty.  An ROP agreement could be signed for a shorter period of time, but their shops are closed to you.  While a NAT treaty requires the longer commitment but allows you to buy gear. ?

 Good idea WhiteElk; I've been thinking along the same lines. Also being able to cross opposing faction territory without permission but with a Diplomatic option of being able to demand units crossing without permission to imediately pay a sum of gold or be forceably evicted from the area of control or face imediate war. While crossing without permission relations are temporaly strained heavily against the faction crossing saids lands without a ROP Agreement.

Yes to being able to specify the duration (thus making it cheaper to get a short one).

Having a ROP pact without a NA pact reduces the value of being able to pass through their lands (they might declare war and attack) and more dangerous (they may move troops into your land and then declare war... and you lose valuable cities). Therefore NA pact should be a prereq for ROP pact, if separated.

Or just make it so that declaring war while under an ROP agreement, auto-boots enemy forces to locations outside of the targets borders.  This worked well to fix Civ3's ROP exploit. 

I wouldn't mind variable and negotiable time rates.  But I wonder if that might be more time consuming to code?  With all the work yet to go, I think we may have a better shot at seeing a change here if it is a quick and simple one. For now anyway.  A future expansion including expanded diplomacy is another matter. 

Having the ai declare war on you for marching into their territory without a treaty makes perfect sense. Any country in the world would flip out if you marched troops across their borders.

However 99 turns seams way excessive. If anything, that seems most like china "leasing" honk kong to britain for 99 years. Just give an option to pick how long the treaty lasts, and an option to break the treaty. Of course breaking should be punished with big diplomatic hits, but it should be an option. we also need some ninja units for spying and sneaking around.

Nah, it would just need a popup to select the duration. After that it is pretty much the same (it would start at the selected time rather than 99).

-----

Prehaps attacking the same turn war is declared should penalize you diplomatically?

A Non Agression Pact that can be broken in any moment should give a penalty to your relations with any faction you and your enemy know. Everybody knows about "The bastard whose word means nothing" and stuff. The penalty should be based on how many seasons were still plus some minor random value.

I suppose you would use the same formula which tells the AI what value to place on the NAT?  Then write an equation to calculate the various duration increments?  I haven't written code since Apple BASIC on an AppleIIe lol, but I guessed that cloning then modifying the NAT might be the quicker approach.  Sorta of like cut and paste XML moding idk.  Whatever gets it in for v1.1 Stable is fine with me.  I'm fine with a cheap and dirty fix for now.  In the longer term,  I'd like to see more diplomacy modifiers for things like broken treaties.  But it's my guess that we won't be seeing much added diplomacy depth until the expansions.  There are just too many other things of a more immediate import.  ?

Another note I've failed to mention:  It seems to me that a non-aggression pact should be separate from a right of passage agreement anyway.  Agreeing to non-aggression and agreeing to right of passage seem different enough to justify an option for either. 

I actually like the 99 turns thing.  It makes you think real hard about entering those non-aggression pacts (i.e. do I want this guy around for another 99 turns on my border?  Can I wait 100 turns before killing him?).

That being said, being able to specify shorter treaties might be nice.  Or being allowed to backstab after you've formed the pact...

What happens if another AI player asks you to attack a player you have a pact with?  Does that nullify the pact?  I haven't tried yet...

It nullifies the pact if you accept another AI players request to gang up on another AI player.

Yah itneeds to be 25-30 turns long

I like it at 99 turns as it stops the human player from exploiting the diplomacy features like in so many other games. This is not that high on the list of importance anyway. Fixing the ai combat and functions of combat and spells is most important. This kind of silliness can wait for an expansion or the 2nd expansion.

The AI players offer to gang up often enough anyways, so if you are talking to them, chances are good that 'Let's gang up on the Gildar' will show up before the 99 turns are up...

So keep the 99 turns in place, but keep the AI offers as pretty common.  This seems a little too random though.

If you could 'milk' the AI player into the gang up offer over a few turns, that might be more interesting.

I.E. First conversation, you state: "Those Gildar are really powerful.  I'm concerned."

Next conversation a few turns later, you state: "Those Gildar continue to build up their armies.  They could hurt us given the chance"

A few turns later, you state: "The Gildar have become very powerful.  We may have to deal with them soon, although right now my hands are tied".

A turn or two later, the AI drops a line, stating: "The Gildar must be stoppped!  Let us join forces and wipe them out!".

I agree with this. A shorter period would open up for AI exploiting. Now it is an interesting decision you have to make, 30 turns would always be a given "yes".

But in addition, perhaps we can have a new type of treaty that allows for heroes, sovereigns and pioneers to cross the border, but not regular army units?

I rather like another idea : SMUGGLING

You can try to get SMUGGLED from one border to the other, you'll have to pay dearly for it and there's a random chance of getting CAUGHT and causing a WAR or a severe heavy fine or severe diplomatic repurcussions like losing trade agreements and no diplomatic conversations for several turns after getting caught except the AI telling you to "GIT OFF MAH LAND".

Something else that would be kewl if caught is a large non-upkeep army appears and you have to fight it with whatever you have in your stack being smuggled. If you lose yore captured and held for ransom and can't do any major build/diplomatic things until you pay your ransom or are released. After the battle the large non-upkept army will disappear.