In my last two games I was involved in a number of big alliance wars, and my BB rating didn't make sense. Sometimes I got BB points when I thought I shouldn't have, other times there were no BB point when I thought I deserved them.
I looks to me like the Current Wars info screen shows the wars with the Aggressor listed first. ie: Aggressor Leader & Allies vs. Defender Leader & Defender Allies.
What seems to happen, when you make a separate peace with the Defender Leader, is that the aggressors/defenders change roles. For example, Spain DOW's France, then concludes a separate peace with France. Spain will then be in a defensive war against France's allies.
This is similar to what others have posted about how a defensive war will turn into an offensive war after a separate peace. (See the BB Thingy thread.)
But this swapping of roles only seems to occur when you make peace with the Temporary alliance leader. If you make a sequence of separate Peace aggreements with just the allies, your offensive or defensive war will remain as is.
This makes some sense; at least if the swapping of roles only happens once. The defender's allies DID choose to attack you when they honored their alliance obligations.
So it makes sense to come to terms with you main foes ALLIES first, when you have been attacked. (in order to stay the defender.) And, if you don't consider it cheating, it makes sense to come to terms with you main foe first when you are the attacker. (in order to become the defender.)
[humility note here] This elaborate theory is just based on a few games, and was thought up, as an explanation, after the games were done. Allance wars with opportunities for land grabbing separate peaces are so rare that I can't do a quick 10 minute test. Does this theory match with or contradict your experience?
I looks to me like the Current Wars info screen shows the wars with the Aggressor listed first. ie: Aggressor Leader & Allies vs. Defender Leader & Defender Allies.
What seems to happen, when you make a separate peace with the Defender Leader, is that the aggressors/defenders change roles. For example, Spain DOW's France, then concludes a separate peace with France. Spain will then be in a defensive war against France's allies.
This is similar to what others have posted about how a defensive war will turn into an offensive war after a separate peace. (See the BB Thingy thread.)
But this swapping of roles only seems to occur when you make peace with the Temporary alliance leader. If you make a sequence of separate Peace aggreements with just the allies, your offensive or defensive war will remain as is.
This makes some sense; at least if the swapping of roles only happens once. The defender's allies DID choose to attack you when they honored their alliance obligations.
So it makes sense to come to terms with you main foes ALLIES first, when you have been attacked. (in order to stay the defender.) And, if you don't consider it cheating, it makes sense to come to terms with you main foe first when you are the attacker. (in order to become the defender.)
[humility note here] This elaborate theory is just based on a few games, and was thought up, as an explanation, after the games were done. Allance wars with opportunities for land grabbing separate peaces are so rare that I can't do a quick 10 minute test. Does this theory match with or contradict your experience?