pact of no aggression

[Dago]

i love this game but i think that should exist pact of no-aggression between nations (or alliances)

i think is much historical

they should late for 5 or 10 years

BB points and stability affects if someone broke this pact

 

[unmerged(5822)]

Originally posted by DAGO
i love this game but i think that should exist pact of no-aggression between nations (or alliances)

i think is much historical

they should late for 5 or 10 years

BB points and stability affects if someone broke this pact

They are called 'royal marriages'.

 

[unmerged(11796)]

But if the effect (if broken) would be stability hit, or reputation hit, than it is similar to RM, maybe too similar.

EDIT: Damn! Too slow.

 

[unmerged(5822)]

Originally posted by zBla
EDIT: Damn! Too slow.

 

[Dago]

it's not the same : broke a RM is different than broke a tregue

and then, if austria and OE want to make a pact of no aggression??

 

[The Witch-King]

Well, the diplomatic system is modeled on the attitudes of the time. That is also the reason for it not being totally uncomplicated to just annex another nation or declare war without a stability hit.

And religion is a major part of politics in this game, as it should be. Friendship ties in the era were often forged through dynastic alliances, an this was only possible where the religious-ideological differences were not too great.

Thus the fact that it is impossible to forge non-agression pacts with nations of other religions makes complete sense to me.

Think Carlos V, not Ribbentrop