War declared around a defensive pact?

[InsideOutFace]

This was a weird situation... it involved me and three other empires, all of whom shared borders with me.

E1 was a snarky bunch who had been my rival for a while. E2 and E3 were friendly with me, with research agreements and commercial pacts.

I got a notification that E1 was preparing to declare war on me, so, I went and got E2 and E3 into defensive pacts.

Then, E2 declared war on E3, and invited E1 to join in. Thus I was suddenly at war with E2 and E1, even though I had a defensive pact with E2 (that immediately disappeared) that I had got specifically to prevent war with E1 in the first place.

When I looked at my diplomatic relations with E2, there was no mention of a broken pact or anything.

What exactly the heck happened??

[Elitewrecker PT]

You had a defensive pact with E3 so you're forced to join that one, if you're at war with E2 you can't have a defensive pact with it.

[Ryika]

And Defensive Pacts only account for the direct target of a declaration of war. If you have defensive pacts with A and B, then A can still attack B, as long as A and B don't also have a Defensive Pact.

[InsideOutFace]

Originally posted by Elitewrecker PT:

You had a defensive pact with E3 so you're forced to join that one, if you're at war with E2 you can't have a defensive pact with it.

That's my point. I HAD a defpact with E2 AND E3, then E2 declared war on E3 and was suddenly at war with me too, despite the defpact I had with E2 moments before.

[InsideOutFace]

Originally posted by Ryika:

And Defensive Pacts only account for the direct target of a declaration of war. If you have defensive pacts with A and B, then A can still attack B, as long as A and B don't also have a Defensive Pact.

Exactly. It's very... loophole-y, isn't it?

[Orion Invictus]

Originally posted by InsideOutFace:

Originally posted by Elitewrecker PT:

You had a defensive pact with E3 so you're forced to join that one, if you're at war with E2 you can't have a defensive pact with it.

That's my point. I HAD a defpact with E2 AND E3, then E2 declared war on E3 and was suddenly at war with me too, despite the defpact I had with E2 moments before.

Because the pact with the empire that was targeted for war takes precedence over the empire that wasn't. What do you think the alternative should be?

[Elitewrecker PT]

Because it's a DEFENSIVE PACT- you're forced to join the DEFENDERS. If you were in an alliance with E2 then you'd have to attack E3 instead.

[InsideOutFace]

Originally posted by Orion Invictus:

Originally posted by InsideOutFace:

That's my point. I HAD a defpact with E2 AND E3, then E2 declared war on E3 and was suddenly at war with me too, despite the defpact I had with E2 moments before.

Because the pact with the empire that was targeted for war takes precedence over the empire that wasn't. What do you think the alternative should be?

Some way to close the loophole would be nice... perhaps a warning that an ally is about to declare war on another ally, giving the player time to break off pacts before war breaks out. If nothing else, some diplomatic penalties applied to the empire that went around the pact. Something like that.

[Elitewrecker PT]

You can check the opinions of other empires so you should take that into consideration when forming defensive pacts with people that might attack each other.

[Ryika]

Originally posted by InsideOutFace:

Exactly. It's very... loophole-y, isn't it?

I mean... not really? I can see why it's confusing at first glance, but the rules here are very clear. They're attacking a third party, not you, so why would your defensive pact prevent that?

Originally posted by InsideOutFace:

Some way to close the loophole would be nice... perhaps a warning that an ally is about to declare war on another ally, giving the player time to break off pacts before war breaks out. If nothing else, some diplomatic penalties applied to the empire that went around the pact. Something like that.

The solution to the "loophole" is to not get yourself into that situation. Defensive Pacts should be used sparingly, if at all.

[Orion Invictus]

Originally posted by InsideOutFace:

Originally posted by Orion Invictus:

Because the pact with the empire that was targeted for war takes precedence over the empire that wasn't. What do you think the alternative should be?

Some way to close the loophole would be nice... perhaps a warning that an ally is about to declare war on another ally, giving the player time to break off pacts before war breaks out. If nothing else, some diplomatic penalties applied to the empire that went around the pact. Something like that.

You can have an early warning of war by using espionage, but I think that only works if they want to declare war on you specifically. However, no one went around any pacts. You had a defensive pact with two empires. Another empire declared war on one of them, so only that defensive pact is relevant, since the other empire isn't being attacked.

Maybe it helps to simplify things to just three empires, E1-3. E1 has a defensive pact with E2 and E3. E2 declares war on E3. Should E1 automatically be summoned to E3's defense, or should the defensive pact be ignored because E1 also happens to have a defensive pact with E2? The "loophole" you speak of, IMO, would be the second scenario, where E3's defensive pact would be rendered useless when they actually needed it.

[InsideOutFace]

Originally posted by Orion Invictus:

Originally posted by InsideOutFace:

Some way to close the loophole would be nice... perhaps a warning that an ally is about to declare war on another ally, giving the player time to break off pacts before war breaks out. If nothing else, some diplomatic penalties applied to the empire that went around the pact. Something like that.

You can have an early warning of war by using espionage. However, no one went around any pacts. You had a defensive pact with two empires. Another empire declared war on one of them, so only that defensive pact is relevant, since the other empire isn't being attacked.

Maybe it helps to simplify things to just three empires, E1-3. E1 has a defensive pact with E2 and E3. E2 declares war on E3. Should E1 automatically be summoned to E3's defense, or should the defensive pact be ignored because E1 also happens to have a defensive pact with E2? The "loophole" you speak of, IMO, would be the second scenario, where E3's defensive pact would be rendered useless when they actually needed it.

I think since E1 had pacts with both E2 and E3, the pact should take priority first. Stellaris revolves heavily around dealing with unforeseen events, I'm fully aware of this, but in this case it was a full-on blindside. The defensive pacts were supposed to keep me out of war, not get me into one with absolutely zero warning.

[Elitewrecker PT]

The pact did exactly what it was supposed to - partner the two empires that agreed to protect each other.
That you happened to also have a pact with the attacker is a problem for you, not the responsibility of the defending empire.

[pete3great]

There is a workaround. It's called a "federation."

[Ryika]

Originally posted by InsideOutFace:

The defensive pacts were supposed to keep me out of war, not get me into one with absolutely zero warning.

But what they were "supposed to do" is irrelevant, because those are just your expectations being proven wrong by reality.

[Elitewrecker PT]

If you wanted to guarantee no one would attack each other you'd have to form a federation with you and E2 and E3