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

[Anthony Anderson]

On 10/11/07, Tom <tom at lemuria.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> >   Making the rulers
> > travel also can enforce an interesting dynamic: if one realm's king
> > is forced to travel to the other realm's capital to sign an alliance
> > to protect his kingdom, that really shows who's the junior partner,
> > right?
>
> Hm, that is a very interesting solution. Maybe as an alternative?


The "junior partner" idea is one that I've advocated from time to time in
realm diplomacy.  There's always a stronger party on any side of an
agreement.  I think the game could be split wide open with the addition of
things like paying tribute to maintain a particular diplomatic treaty.  With
these new steps, it makes even more sense.

Sign a NAP agreeing that your enemy won't attack you as long as you pay them
500 gold per month in tribute?  If you are late on that payment, contract is
broken and relations are reset to "no relations".  This could even apply to
alliances and federations.  A weaker realm begs for protection by a bigger
realm in exchange for monthly tribute.  Default on your end, poof goes the
alliance.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://news.battlemaster.org/pipermail/discuss-moderated/attachments/20071011/831f880f/attachment-0001.htm 
-------------- next part --------------


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