Treaty Feature

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Treaty Feature

      Do you like this idea? 2
      1.  
        Yes (0) 0%
      2.  
        Needs work (2) 100%
      3.  
        No (0) 0%
      Hello!
      I have a suggestion that would change the way the trading system and the game as a whole would work. Treaties! Have you ever wanted to make a deal with a competitor or an ally? It's tough though. Say you've just been attacked and you're like "I'll give you x amount of troops and these provinces if you stop attacking me." Well, it's hard to give provinces and resources, and it can take a lot of time and be hard to adhere to. Well, with treaties that could change. Someone could write up a detailed treaty that allows more components than a single trade. The old way, you'd have to give each and everyone of the provinces and resource type separately and then there's no guarantee that the enemy will lay off you. With a treaty, you could have one big contract where you could give at most 2-3 provinces (depending on the map), at most 4-7 armies (depending on the map) and a ton of resources, in return for peace. Since full and everlasting peace would take the fun out of it, the peace period would only last at most 5-10 days (depending on the map) how long the peace is given is of course customizable. It would be agreed to by both parties through the simple trade agree vs decline system, and the results would be publicized in the Newspaper. Maybe there would be an option to keep it secret, but that could result in metagaming with alts.


      For example: Say I'm France and Germany attacked me and took over a considerable part of me, but Germany then got attacked and didn't want to deal with me for a bit. I also didn't have the resources to put up a winning fight but could still do damage to Germany. We could draft a treaty where I will give him 5,000 metal, a tank brigade, and Lyon for a 7 day peace period between both of us. I'd agree, he'd agree and then it would auto-publicize the results in the newspaper.

      It doesn't always have to be in that case. Say I wanted to trade my ally a province for a province, and materials for troops and a whole bunch of other stuff. Instead of making separate deals, it would be one big treaty that would agreed by both parties and publicized in the newspaper.

      There are a ton of possibilities, the sky's the limit.

      To prevent metagaming, maybe you could only have one treaty every five days or so and only seven treaties a game. It all depends on the size of the map and the details of the feature.

      Tell me your opinions and suggestions! :thumbup:
    • Potentially a good idea, but restrictions would have to be included/mentioned, and allowing one to do this treaty could make any flaws in the trading system highlighted significantly. One example is the limited number of provinces that one can trade during a given game, this could probably be abused. Maybe there could be restrictions on when this is allowed until a better solution is found? One potential allowed time is when the 2 nations would have to have been at war for 5 days straight with each other and have gained/lost at least 6 territories in that time period. Some of these may not be very ideal, but you will have to recognize, this game is about war, not necessarily peace. For the most part, you will have to fight this enemy, unless you want a coalition between the 2 of you. The most beneficial places for these treaties would be the larger maps, where these wars can escalate to much higher levels (50 player and higher). It's not ideal on a 4-player map because you should seriously be able to figure these kinds of relations out with your 3 enemies. If this is added, the game would need to be marked that treaties are allowed on the map. Just some other things to think about, but nice idea.
      "Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster." ~ Sun Tzu, The Art of War

      "War does not determine who is right - only who is left."