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

[AJ]

On 10/10/07, Tom Vogt <tom at lemuria.org> 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.

I definitely do not like this idea. It just is not realistic and we
are trying to find out of the way solutions to this problem.
Yes, I do not have a solution right now, but this is too force fitting..

Except in certain ceasefires or surrender treaties, alliances were
never time bound/limited to a period!

AJ
-- 
bLogging at - http://ramblings.ajaxed.net