[Discuss] Brainstorming: Limiting Large Alliances (Take 42)

[Robert Croson, Jr]

On 9 Oct 2007 at 22:46, Tom Vogt wrote:

> How about we simply time-limit all positive diplomatic stances? A 
> cease-fire has a length of time. A peace treaty has a run-time.
> 
> Of course, you can extend the times. But it can be more and more 
> expensive, and it gives you plausible deniability if you want to go to 
> war ("sorry, I forgot about the cease-fire, I didn't mean it to run out, 
> those troops were sent to aid you, it was all a big misunderstanding...").
> 
> More importantly, it might edge people towards actively re-thinking 
> their alliances instead of simply accepting them as they are. Especially 
> new rulers might ask a tricky "why?" when the time to 
> re-negotiate/extend comes up.
> 
> 
> Comments?

I like the idea of an on-going maintenance cost (or renewal fees of limited-duration 
agreements) for alliances and federations. The more realms that are allied in one block, the 
more it costs for each of them. Make the costs scaled based on the size of each realm. Two 
huge realms allying should have to pay a much higher cost per realm than four small realms 
allying. The ongoing fees will also make blocks of allies consider how much it will cost to *all* 
of them to add additional alliance members. "Is it really worth it to add Keplerstan to our 
block? If we do it, then perhaps Frankenstan will drop out of the block, because they won't be 
able to afford the maintenance fees." Slowly increasing the maintenance cost will make 
longer-term alliances more and more expensive. This will help break up these four or more 
year long alliances. Make the cost decay at the rate it accrues, so they can't just take a two-
month break to reset the cost. (perhaps it decays at an accelerated rate, but it shouldn't be 
as simple as lettig it drop for a month or two to reset the cost.)

Federations may require some adjustment in this equation. Perhaps lower the cost 
significantly, or cap it at some specific percentage of realm income. There should be a 
benefit of making the commitment of Federation.

One big negative: It will make it harder for smaller realms to find that big ally that can give the 
small guy the cover it needs to get itself established. How many realms would be willing to 
admit the smaller realm to their block, even temporarily, if it was going to incur a significant  
expense for all fo them? I'm not sure right now how to get around that. Perhaps some kind of 
exemption or significant alliance-cost reduction for foundling realms.

I realize that these suggestions don't really have any real-world basis (so far as I know). But 
then again, BattleMaster isn't a real-world simulator, either.

Also, I am in favor of completely removing the Peace diplomatic setting. Peace allows realms 
to work together easier. Removing peace and having it go War>Neutral>Alliance will force 
realms to pick sides, and help prevent de facto alliances. Making it much more difficult for 
realms to work together without a firm commitment will reduce the effitiveness of de facto 
alliances.



-- 
Unsubscribing and other list options:
http://news.battlemaster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss