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

[Timothy Collett]

OK, I thought of something else, that I think will help create a  
solid foundation for dealing with a lot of these problems.  It's not  
simple or quick, but I think it will also add a really interesting  
and useful new dimension to the game.

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  
should be declared for specific reasons, by one realm, against  
another, and if allies want to join in a war, they can.  The only  
diplomatic status that should be maintainable without a clear set of  
defining conditions is neutrality--and even that can have conditions  
when it is achieved by a ceasefire or surrender (more on those  
later ;-) ).  Now, to expand some:

Agreements:
All agreements that raise relations need defined terms.  In general,  
these will follow the same pattern: we won't attack each other, we'll  
take quick action against loose-cannon infiltrators who do, we'll  
always sell you food if we have at least X surplus, at least 2 weeks'  
notice before dissolving, etc.  These kinds of things can be  
recognized by the game pretty easily, and enforced--as in, any noble  
attempting to violate it will receive a warning that this contravenes  
the agreement, and if they do it anyway, the other side has the  
option to ignore the incident, renegotiate, or dissolve the agreement  
immediately, without prejudice.  Breaking an agreement without the  
specified notice will incur some kind of penalty--maybe to honour &  
prestige, maybe to peasant morale; the details need testing and  
balancing.

Ceasefires should work much the same, but always have a relatively  
short time limit, which the realms involved can override for ~1 day  
on either side of the limit, extending the ceasefire.  However, that  
doesn't make the peasants happy...

Wars:
When declaring a war, you need defined goals.  These can be game- 
recognizable goals (take regions X, Y, and Z; loot this much food and  
that much gold; force the banning of the noble who insulted your  
ruler, etc), or freeform things like "make them apologize."  The  
aggressor in the war (the one who declares it) can decide at any time  
that the freeform goals have been met; however, if there are game- 
recognizable goals, attempting to end the war *before* they are met  
will bring outrage from the peasants.  Conversely, attempting to  
continue the war *after* they are met will upset the peasants, too  
(unless you've managed to whip them up into Hatred; then anything goes).

For the defender, I'm not quite as sure what the goals should be  
defined as.  Naturally, if the aggressor ever decides to end the war,  
the defender can agree with no penalty.  However, if they can achieve  
symmetrical goals to those the aggressors have stated, I think that  
should produce the same effects as for the aggressors doing the same.

If *either* side achieves their goals, the peasants on *both* sides  
will be more willing to accept peace--and, indeed, will push for it,  
in their own filthy, peasantly ways.  That encourages the loser to  
accept an unfavourable peace.

However, another condition that war can be fought to is *surrender*.

Surrender:
A realm that is losing a war (in their own subjective view) should  
have the option to offer surrender.  This forces the other side to  
the bargaining table unless they have previously declared "no  
quarter."  The diplomatic status is set temporarily to "neutral", and  
the rulers of both sides must negotiate terms, which can include  
handover of regions, stepping down of one or more position holders  
(region or Council), banning of one or more nobles (but not more than  
a certain % of the realm), a payment of tribute (how that should be  
handled, I'm not quite sure), and any terms applicable in agreements  
as mentioned above.  Naturally, the winning side is free to offer any  
concessions they wish, as well, but unless they have good reason to  
want the war over *fast* they shouldn't be offering much.

If terms of surrender include ongoing conditions, such as "stay out  
of our land", they become established agreements, and are arbitrated  
by the game much like any other.

Note that while I have been talking in terms of a 1-vs-1 war, any  
number of allies can *join* a war on either side.  If they want to  
take a new side against both parties, they'll have to declare their  
own war, which will just make things more interesting.  Surrender by  
the initial aggressor or defender *can*, if they agree on it, end the  
war for their allies, as well.  All surrender negotiations are  
between the surrendering realm and *all* realms on the opposing side,  
though multiple realms can negotiate together and work out identical  
surrender agreements--that's up to players.

Now, that's a lot of stuff for anyone to remember, and agreements  
*do* get forgotten over time....so there should be some mechanism  
whereby a long-standing agreement needs to be renewed by one or both  
sides every so often, or it just disappears, lost in a back drawer of  
the Royal Archives.  Not sure how that should work yet, though.

*Phew!* That was longer than I expected...

Timothy Collett
Anaris Family

--

"While all answers are replies, not all replies are answers."
~ Ta'Lon