Self-Destructing Treaties: A concept for the paperphilic

[Ogaden]

I've long considered a possible solution to the problems facing the world that treaties be re-imagined, that treaties are basically single use instruments, this treaty is valid for the next conflict.  After that, everyone has to sign new treaties again.

 

The main issue is what I call "cancellation inertia", where people won't cancel treaties they don't want, need or like anymore, purely out of either nostalgia, fear or concern that it would offend the other party.  This change however puts the opposite situation in place, where treaties constantly have to be re-approved.

 

This proposal contains 3 parts, articles that should be included in every treaty:

 

1 Terms of Use: Pact is redeemable for one war, once that war is concluded the pact expires

2 Escape Clause: Pact is voided if either party attacks alliance X, Y or Z, which are off limits to the treaty scope

3 Expiry Date:  Best before December 2016

Edited September 16, 2016 by Ogaden

[Wolfie]

Seems a lot like Civ 5 which is one thing I hate about that game , so much work rebuilding the defense, and sometimes they say no!!!!!! 

[Ogaden]

tl:dr;

 

<Ogaden>: yeah man, treaties become pact coupons

<Ogaden>: redeem for one war

<Ogaden>: while supplies last

<Ogaden>: some conditions apply

<Ogaden>: limited time only

[Ole]

I love this, this is basicly how Paperless roll. As you would know

[Foltest]

I like the concept.

[Insert Name Here]

Meh, I could go either way tbh. I like the politics / strategy behind successful paperless alliances and frankly it must be really fun to lead one of them, since you have to talk to pretty much every AA on a regular basis. If you completely neglect that, you'll probably end up getting rolled now and then.

 

On the other hand, I find "treaty chess" pretty interesting as well. Even tho complete chaos and no ties whatsoever would add total unpredictability to the game, the tendency in these games wil always make the political landscape drift towards 2 main blocs; and this is really straightforward.

 

Every alliance likes to win. What do you need to do to win? Surround yourself with great allies. So when a winning bloc is formed, the oppposition will try to break their hegemoney. How can they do that? By getting more allies, so they can have the numbers / strength to beat the hegemonic side. The process will go on and on till every minor gorup of AAs ends up on 2 different sides, which inevitably find themselves competing with one another for dominance. This dynamic also has its points of interest. Especially in P&W, a game that actually requires skill, as far as AA wars are concerned. Unlike (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways), P&W's game mechanics make war quite fun.

 

At the end of the day, I just want to be involved in AA wars as often as possible, preferably winning. I don't care a lot about the political landscape that will be responsible for it. But this is me, a guy whose interest in the game revolves essentially around AA wars. However, I do find this paperless vs non-paperless debate quite entertaining.

 

EDIT: pretty intriguing concept, Ogaden!

Edited September 16, 2016 by Insert Name Here

[LordRahl2]

It is an idea but it is irrelevant.

 

The "paper" you all go on and on about really just formalizes what has already happened.

[Ogaden]

It is an idea but it is irrelevant.

 

The "paper" you all go on and on about really just formalizes what has already happened.

Much like marriages, many treaties remain in place long after all affection died.

[LordRahl2]

Much like marriages, many treaties remain in place long after all affection died.

 

You assume actions are related to affection.  This is false.

[Insert Name Here]

Much like marriages, many treaties remain in place long after all affection died.

 

 

Loved the analogy. 

[Boony]

We'll just constantly renew them.

[Ogaden]

We'll just constantly renew them.

That would be fine too

[greatkitteh]

No.

[Sisyphus]

We'll just constantly renew them.

Until we don't.

 

It adds an element of active upkeep, resource management and forced review every conflict. Which is cool.

 

It's a fun idea. Somehow I doubt this community will change the dynamic enough to make it commonplace.

 

Edit: Would be interesting to see a couple alliances build their theme around this treaty concept though.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Wilhelm the Demented

[Chunky Monkey]

You can propose these things all you want, but at the end of the day, with no game mechanic forcing people to behave differently, they won't. This argument between paperless and paper and trying to "find a way to fix the game" is kind of pointless. After all, there is no binding force punishing you for not honoring a paper treaty obligation, same as a paperless one. Until there is some game mechanic that forces people to sign treaties more strategically than "we like you and generally find you competent", it simply isn't going to happen.

[King Zog]

You can propose these things all you want, but at the end of the day, with no game mechanic forcing people to behave differently, they won't. This argument between paperless and paper and trying to "find a way to fix the game" is kind of pointless. After all, there is no binding force punishing you for not honoring a paper treaty obligation, same as a paperless one. Until there is some game mechanic that forces people to sign treaties more strategically than "we like you and generally find you competent", it simply isn't going to happen.

 

I agree with this, unfortunately. I say 'unfortunately' because the problem with many games is that people have trouble thinking outside the mechanics, never mind playing outside them.

 

In theory, however, 'one-war treaties' are a great idea because that's how the real world has historically worked. One huge difference, though, is that real governments change in-between wars. That doesn't happen as often in a game. Or, if it does happen, the change is usually of an incremental nature.

[Guest Rin]

I like the idea.

 

Near impossible in practice though. Like t$ invests a lot in protectorates, over a very long period of time. It's going to be hard to let go.

 

If an alliance burns a lot of infra and loses members for allies, they wouldn't want to drop the allies they sacrificed a lot for. And the allies certainly aren't going to drop them either. If you have a quick &#33;@#&#036;, end up with a baby, it's going to be upgraded into a full marriage later just due to social pressure from friends and enemies.

[Sketchy]

I've long considered a possible solution to the problems facing the world that treaties be re-imagined, that treaties are basically single use instruments, this treaty is valid for the next conflict.  After that, everyone has to sign new treaties again.

 

The main issue is what I call "cancellation inertia", where people won't cancel treaties they don't want, need or like anymore, purely out of either nostalgia, fear or concern that it would offend the other party.  This change however puts the opposite situation in place, where treaties constantly have to be re-approved.

 

This proposal contains 3 parts, articles that should be included in every treaty:

 

1 Terms of Use: Pact is redeemable for one war, once that war is concluded the pact expires

2 Escape Clause: Pact is voided if either party attacks alliance X, Y or Z, which are off limits to the treaty scope

3 Expiry Date:  Best before December 2016

 

I like 2 and 3, but 1 is a tad overkill.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Alliances are going to do what Alliances do regardless. Suggestions like these are fine, but they fall on deaf ears.