Kyte Posted June 18, 2016 Share Posted June 18, 2016 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Specter Posted June 18, 2016 Share Posted June 18, 2016 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. 1 Quote Amidst the eternal waves of time From a ripple of change shall the storm rise Out of the abyss peer the eyes of a demon Behold the razgriz, its wings of black sheath The demon soars through dark skies Fear and death trail its shadow beneath Until men united weild a hallowed sabre In final reckoning, the beast is slain As the demon sleeps, man turns on man His own blood and madness soon cover the earth From the depths of despair awaken the razgriz Its raven wings ablaze in majestic light Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8mrgrim8 Posted June 18, 2016 Share Posted June 18, 2016 I don't like it, it prevents any surprises. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kastor Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 I like the NAP idea, would allow allies to not accidentally have those noob nations attack each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callum Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 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" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketchy Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 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 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilac Veritas Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 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 Quote As you sow, so shall you reap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 (edited) 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 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.