[Discuss] Brainstorming: Limiting Large Alliances (Take 42)
John P. Murphy
john.p.murphy at Dartmouth.EDU
Wed Oct 10 17:00:45 CEST 2007
On Oct 9, 2007, at 4:46 PM, 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?
Notification is an issue. Cease-fires ending silently allows for
those nice little "misunderstandings", but alliances and federations
probably ought to notify at least the realms involved.
It should not be easy or practically automatic to renew alliances.
This could couple nicely with my suggestion that rulers should have
to travel and meet in order to sign agreements: if it's just a matter
of spending some gold and clicking a link, there won't be much soul-
searching over a huge cross-continent alliance. 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? In any case, it should cost something other than gold: more
than eight hours of a ruler's time, for example, or that travel
requirement. A ruler ought to be able to come up with good plausible
excuses not to renew. War, on the other hand, should be easy to
declare.
Also, what is the default state of affairs, neutral or war? Would it
be worth having a separate "cease-fire" category, which acts like
peace, but reverts to war instead of to neutral?
John
More information about the Discuss
mailing list