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

[Anthony Cerqueira]

n 10/9/07, Tom Vogt <tom at lemuria.org> wrote:
>
> Timothy Collett schrieb:
> > We need to make diplomatic relations more than just single numbers in
> > the database.
> >
> > Peace treaties, alliances, and federations all need to be game-
> > recognized agreements, with definable conditions and limits.  Wars
> >
>
> Very tricky, probably not code-able.
>
> However, I like one idea:
>
>
> 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?
>
>
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribing and other list options:
> http://news.battlemaster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>


I really really like the idea of a time limit on diplomatic settings. I
think it will work really well. I have nothing else to add at this exact
moment, but will think about it and see what I can come up with.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://news.battlemaster.org/pipermail/discuss-moderated/attachments/20071009/7f1f4c4f/attachment-0001.htm 
-------------- next part --------------


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