Holton Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 In (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), PnW, PT, PN, and every nationsim we've seen the same pattern repeated. Politics happen a bunch in the beginning, there are clearly defined sides, and conflict keeps interest. Over the next year or two, people begin doing FA work and naturally treaties are signed. But what happens when I sign with someone I like, who is already treatied to 3 people they like, and each of those has ties to various alliances? A web forms. A choking, crushing, interest-killing, and eventually game-ending stagnation begins because while everyone says they don't want to clog the web - they can't help it. You lose wars if you don't "play the game". So how the !@#$ do we avoid this bullshit? In the spirit of incentivizing competition, creating new political dynamics, and generally pushing more conflict into the game: Step One: Create a limited number of in-game treaty slots. Like 3. Step Two: Provide bonuses and penalties. Alliances your treatied with have access to your shared markets, share treasure bonuses, have access to shared announcements, a percent of each treaty partner's color bonus is added on to your income etc. Trades have tariffs applied to them that get negated by the in-game treaties so non-allied people have to pay extra on your trades and vice-versa (it's very important the game adds this on, not the players themselves as to facilitate a "need" to treaty people). Step three: in-game treaty slots hopefully matter enough to create feelings of alienation and even animosity - leading to conflict... "oh you let them into your slot but not us?" etc. step four: ??? politics here. step five: more conflict Suddenly, people who have overt amounts of treaties either have to strategically organize groupings that will evenly distribute economic bonuses - or end up alienating the "left overs" that are excluded from the treaty groups. Ideally this would create artificial competition for the treaty slots and create artificial conflict via exclusion. IDEALLY shattering or splitting up the clogged treaty web and permanently Quote Superbia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketchy Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 Pfft solution is weaksauce. Clearly sheepy needs to demand all alliances drop all their current treaties or he'll delete their AA. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wulfharth Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 Or you could bring back the colour stock bonuses 2 Quote FKA Wulfharth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 A better option, IMO, would be the player base setting a sunset clause on all treaties. After x days, the treaty has a 48 hour period where it can be renewed or dropped. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edward I Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 What's to stop alliances from signing more than three treaties? It's not like you can prevent alliance A from declaring on alliance B in support of alliance C just because alliance A didn't include alliance C in its three official treaty partners. All this amounts to is a cosmetic change to the alliance display page. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketchy Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 What's to stop alliances from signing more than three treaties? It's not like you can prevent alliance A from declaring on alliance B in support of alliance C just because alliance A didn't include alliance C in its three official treaty partners. All this amounts to is a cosmetic change to the alliance display page. Someone didn't read the entire suggestion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhuto Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 Step One: Create a limited number of in-game treaty slots. Like 3. In that case people will start signing some hidden treaties which will cause mess in war time 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edward I Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 Someone didn't read the entire suggestion. I meant informal treaties - essentially what we have now. Obviously you'd want your top three trade partners to be formal, in-game treaty partners, but without some restriction on alliances' ability to wage war on one another what's to stop alliances from announcing that they will defend other alliances from attack? In other words, what about this suggestion prevents alliances from effectively going over the cap of three treaty partners? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketchy Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 I meant informal treaties - essentially what we have now. Obviously you'd want your top three trade partners to be formal, in-game treaty partners, but without some restriction on alliances' ability to wage war on one another what's to stop alliances from announcing that they will defend other alliances from attack? In other words, what about this suggestion prevents alliances from effectively going over the cap of three treaty partners? Oh I never said it was a good suggestion (it isn't) just that you missed a few parts that undermine the argument its purely cosmetic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edward I Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 Oh I never said it was a good suggestion (it isn't) just that you missed a few parts that undermine the argument its purely cosmetic. Fair enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurdanak Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 A better option, IMO, would be the player base setting a sunset clause on all treaties. After x days, the treaty has a 48 hour period where it can be renewed or dropped. I actually really, really like this idea. It gives the need to properly maintain relationships like paperless does, while still providing necessary clarity and officiality. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayayay Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 (edited) It could basically create a treaty circle similar to (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)'s trading circles where every alliance in a sphere would either rotate to get as much out of it as possible or would just be lazy and stick with whatever they get put into. It actually might even hurt politics because after the initial scramble to get into a treaty circle within a sphere, anyone planing to leave would just get shafted unless they could get the consent of a number of other people, which can be hard to do in a game this small. BK and their allies split is actually ahistorically large for this game tbh, even though it was only a handful of alliances. There is also nothing really stopping a single alliance from breaking into multiple chunks to abuse the feature. It could alternativly end similar to the old color sphere system where half the top 20 alliances were really just the largest 4 maximizing color stock bonuses. Edited April 14, 2017 by Malal 1 Quote Orbis Wars | CSI: UPN | B I G O O F | PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea. On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said: This was !@#$ing gold. 10/10 possibly my favorite post on these forums yet. Sheepy said: I'm retarded, you win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 If you're serious Step 4 is quit the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicente Martinez Posted April 15, 2017 Share Posted April 15, 2017 In (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), PnW, PT, PN, and every nationsim we've seen the same pattern repeated. Politics happen a bunch in the beginning, there are clearly defined sides, and conflict keeps interest. Over the next year or two, people begin doing FA work and naturally treaties are signed. But what happens when I sign with someone I like, who is already treatied to 3 people they like, and each of those has ties to various alliances? A web forms. A choking, crushing, interest-killing, and eventually game-ending stagnation begins because while everyone says they don't want to clog the web - they can't help it. You lose wars if you don't "play the game". So how the !@#$ do we avoid this bullshit? In the spirit of incentivizing competition, creating new political dynamics, and generally pushing more conflict into the game: Step One: Create a limited number of in-game treaty slots. Like 3. Step Two: Provide bonuses and penalties. Alliances your treatied with have access to your shared markets, share treasure bonuses, have access to shared announcements, a percent of each treaty partner's color bonus is added on to your income etc. Trades have tariffs applied to them that get negated by the in-game treaties so non-allied people have to pay extra on your trades and vice-versa (it's very important the game adds this on, not the players themselves as to facilitate a "need" to treaty people). Step three: in-game treaty slots hopefully matter enough to create feelings of alienation and even animosity - leading to conflict... "oh you let them into your slot but not us?" etc. step four: ??? politics here. step five: more conflict Suddenly, people who have overt amounts of treaties either have to strategically organize groupings that will evenly distribute economic bonuses - or end up alienating the "left overs" that are excluded from the treaty groups. Ideally this would create artificial competition for the treaty slots and create artificial conflict via exclusion. IDEALLY shattering or splitting up the clogged treaty web and permanently 1.No.There is literally ZERO need to limit the amount of treaties that alliances can create.This severely limits diplomacy in the game. 2.This is so easy to exploit.A large alliance could splinter into pieces and then just garner all the benefits,this is also too OP. 3They really won't, like there can simply be unofficial alliances and people won't get that jealous enough to start a war. Only children would start a war and endanger their alliance over something as petty as that. 4.What Milton said (jk of course) 5. Really?More constant wars basically make people get wrecked often, eventually they'll get so annoyed with their progress constantly being reset that they just quit. Quote "If a person is satisfied with everything,then he is a complete idiot.A normal person cannot be satisfied with everything."~Vladimir Putin "Every human being makes mistakes."~Ian Smith We do not know what tomorrow will bring. We are not prophets. This is a step in the dark. We can only proceed into the future with faith.~Pieter Wilhelm Botha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted April 15, 2017 Administrators Share Posted April 15, 2017 There's nothing I can do to force alliances to be allied to each other, not be allied to each other, or go to war with one another. I am not the orchestrator of in-game politics - if you find the treaty web boring, you all (collectively) have the power to do something about it. I'm not going to babysit and tell people how they must engage each other politically. 2 Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanek26 Posted April 15, 2017 Share Posted April 15, 2017 There's nothing I can do to force alliances to be allied to each other, not be allied to each other, or go to war with one another. I am not the orchestrator of in-game politics - if you find the treaty web boring, you all (collectively) have the power to do something about it. I'm not going to babysit and tell people how they must engage each other politically. You could put everyone into Rose, that would solve a lot of problems. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.