Treaty Mechanics

[Kyte]

I didn't see this on the denied list of suggestions, so here goes...

 

 

In game treaty mechanics enforced down to the nation level.

 

Non-Aggression Pacts

If Alliance A wants a Non-Aggression Pact with Alliance B, they should be able to offer one in-game for Alliance B's consideration. Should the treaty be ratified by both parties, then the game enforces the NAP between all players of both alliances. 

 

Cancellation Clauses

If Alliance A wants to cancel a treaty with Alliance B, the government may do so. At this point the game automatically enforces a NAP between the two alliances for the predetermined duration (for example, 72 hours). 

 

Optional Attack

Alliance A and Alliance B have a treaty with an Optional Attack clause. Alliance A declares war on Alliance C. Alliance B may now choose to activate the Optional Attack clause. This may have a benefit of enabling an "Alliance View" War page that makes it easier for Alliance Members to find common targets. 

 

Optional Defense

Alliance A and Alliance B have a treaty with an Optional Defense clause. Alliance C declares war on Alliance A. Alliance B may now choose to activate the Optional Defense clause. This may have a benefit of enabling an "Alliance View" War page that makes it easier for Alliance Members to find targets nations to counter. 

 

Mutual Attack

Alliance A and Alliance B have a treaty with an Mutual Attack clause. Alliance A declares war on Alliance C. The Mutual Attack clause is automatically activated, enabling an "Alliance View" War page that makes it easier for Alliance Members to find common targets.

 

Mutual Defense

Alliance A and Alliance B have a treaty with an Mutual Defense clause. Alliance C declares war on Alliance A. The Mutual Defense clause is automatically activated, enabling an "Alliance View" War page that makes it easier for Alliance Members to find targets nations to counter. 

 

A possible benefit of this is a warning that is displayed before an alliance goes to war which shows the potential participants. 

 

Major problems to work out: Conflicting treaty clauses. Ghosting might become more common.

 

Feedback/Input appreciated.

[Dark Specter]

Treaties are conducted on forums, and in back rooms on irc and then announced in the alliance affairs section, there is no need for an ingame feature that involves treaties.

[8mrgrim8]

I don't like it, it prevents any surprises. 

[Kastor]

I like the NAP idea, would allow allies to not accidentally have those noob nations attack each other.

[Callum]

I like the NAP idea, would allow allies to not accidentally have those noob nations attack each other.

Im against the idea that it stops you from doing it.

 

Maybe if you declare on a nation that your AA's share a nap/mdp/whatever  theres an additional Text box in read saying "Blah blah, you're about to attack a "friendly" Nation, are you sure you wish to continue. It may look bad for you and your Alliance" 

[Sketchy]

An ingame system that shows treaties and allows treaties to be offered might be an okay idea, would make updating the treaty web automatic.

 

But no game enforced treaties

[Lilac Veritas]

The ability to backstab always makes things interesting, but I'm down for making it display and have the treaty web update, like sketchy says. Like frankly, someone violating a NAP always provides some good drama for the peanut gallery

[Phiney]

If Sheepy wishes to make the treatyweb automatic, the code for it can be found here: https://github.com/JoeDMitchell/pnw-treatyweb

 

An automatic war timeline could also be made using the same code.

Edited June 19, 2016 by Phiney