Makajawan
Gatling Groink
Supreme Commander Awesome[A:1]
Everything he touches turns to ice, but he warms your heart.
Posts: 813
|
Post by Makajawan on Nov 29, 2008 19:35:43 GMT -5
Are peace treaties unbreakable? If not, then I can see no reason why we need to limit peace treaties.
|
|
Petrosian
Giant Breadbug
The Fishman
Posts: 1,560
|
Post by Petrosian on Nov 29, 2008 19:38:53 GMT -5
I think WD means the treaty is like a promise. You can break it, but it's unhonorable, and leads other people to attack you in anger. But I think that's not much of a difference. If someone is not attacking you, you're at peace with him, and it is the same as a treaty.
|
|
|
Post by Water Dumple on Nov 29, 2008 20:01:53 GMT -5
I think WD means the treaty is like a promise. You can break it, but it's unhonorable, and leads other people to attack you in anger. But I think that's not much of a difference. If someone is not attacking you, you're at peace with him, and it is the same as a treaty. Yes, but you could be attacked by him at any time. If you two have a treaty and he breaks it, nobody is going to want to ally with him, or alternatively, he may very well get the crap beaten out of him by Hachi.
|
|
Makajawan
Gatling Groink
Supreme Commander Awesome[A:1]
Everything he touches turns to ice, but he warms your heart.
Posts: 813
|
Post by Makajawan on Nov 29, 2008 20:28:17 GMT -5
Still, I don't see why they need to be limited. While breaking a peace treaty is slightly harder than breaking an unofficial peace, it's still not too difficult. I think infinite peace treaties still ought to be allowed.
|
|
|
Post by Water Dumple on Nov 29, 2008 20:32:31 GMT -5
List the benefits. I mean, I just don't see why they need to be infinite...
|
|
|
Post by tinfoilman on Nov 29, 2008 21:02:52 GMT -5
I agree with WD: one, maybe two peace treaties is fine.
|
|
Hachi
Waterwraith
Captain Oliby[A:0]
I am Oliby, Businessman of Legends. Fear my accounting!
Posts: 2,355
|
Post by Hachi on Nov 29, 2008 21:06:47 GMT -5
Well, I guess a benefit of more peace treaty is that it would emulate reality a bit better. Personally, I would be interested to see if anyone would use a treaty to backstab at the most opportune moment.
Dishonorable? Yes, but it'll add some delicious FURY to the game.
On the con side, if everyone accepts and keep their treaty, diplomacy could strangle the game.
Either way, I don't have a real position on extra peace treaties.
|
|
|
Post by Water Dumple on Nov 29, 2008 21:17:08 GMT -5
Well, I guess a benefit of more peace treaty is that it would emulate reality a bit better. Personally, I would be interested to see if anyone would use a treaty to backstab at the most opportune moment. Dishonorable? Yes, but it'll add some delicious FURY to the game. On the con side, if everyone accepts and keep their treaty, diplomacy could strangle the game. Either way, I don't have a real position on extra peace treaties. Well, see, that's the thing; the benefits are sort of good. It makes the game a little more realistic. But, as you said, it could make diplomacy a far bigger deal than it should be; in my opinion, that outweighs the benefits, as well as what I mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by yoshimaster on Nov 29, 2008 21:25:57 GMT -5
Oh being realistic is SOOOOOOOOOOOO important in a game about little 1 inch plant animal things that beat up things with flowers.
|
|
Makajawan
Gatling Groink
Supreme Commander Awesome[A:1]
Everything he touches turns to ice, but he warms your heart.
Posts: 813
|
Post by Makajawan on Nov 29, 2008 21:42:08 GMT -5
Say players A and B have a peace treaty. Player C is a threat to player A. Player A cannot make a peace treaty with C without breaking his with B.
On the other hand, diplomacy would have the option to strangle the game, but not so much. After all, people would still have the option to attack or not attack other players either way. Since peace treaties, in terms of game mechanics, do absolutely nothing, I don't think the rules should be able to put sanctions on them.
|
|
Hachi
Waterwraith
Captain Oliby[A:0]
I am Oliby, Businessman of Legends. Fear my accounting!
Posts: 2,355
|
Post by Hachi on Nov 29, 2008 21:57:16 GMT -5
Oh being realistic is SOOOOOOOOOOOO important in a game about little 1 inch plant animal things that beat up things with flowers. Oh, of course, how could I be such a fool! Unneeded sarcasm that points out nothing new is just what we need for this game! Not to single you out, but sarcastic comments have been trying my nerves, mainly because they're not helpful. Usually, they're not amusing either. But, I'm kind of agreeing with Maka. Peace treaties don't really change the game and, it has no real enforcement power. It can be torn up easily. Perhaps raising the peace treaty limit to two or three would be a good compromise.
|
|
Planet9
Ranging Bloyster
Former Power Poster[A:0]
Posts: 1,919
|
Post by Planet9 on Nov 29, 2008 23:35:13 GMT -5
Well, I mean, as Water Dumple has already said (IIRC) since we're in such an enclosed space, a lot of peace treaties have the potential to create a peace/alliance web. You can't break a treaty, other wise 5 different armies will attack you endlessly for breaking a treaty with their ally. You can't not treaty, otherwise you're a target.
|
|
|
Post by Water Dumple on Nov 29, 2008 23:39:17 GMT -5
Say players A and B have a peace treaty. Player C is a threat to player A. Player A cannot make a peace treaty with C without breaking his with B. On the other hand, diplomacy would have the option to strangle the game, but not so much. After all, people would still have the option to attack or not attack other players either way. Since peace treaties, in terms of game mechanics, do absolutely nothing, I don't think the rules should be able to put sanctions on them. Sure, but I'm willing to live with two treaties. We didn't have a situation like that earlier, but we might with these new changes--So having two treaties would make that possible. And another situation in which three treaties would be needed would be rather hard to come by. Rydon summed it up pretty well, I think.
|
|
|
Post by Water Dumple on Nov 29, 2008 23:49:52 GMT -5
By the way, p3ople...I considered deleting the Approval Centre to make another one for next version, since this one is so long. Another part of me said to keep it there because a 55-page approval center is awesome and we need to see how far it goes. I mean...that amounts to 825 posts (Which grows steadily as the games move on). So, what do you folks think? Keep it going or take a clean slate? It's definitely going in the Archives board if it's the latter.
|
|
Waffle-SS
Gatling Groink
The Administrator[A:0]
This means WAR, MAGGOTS!
Posts: 997
|
Post by Waffle-SS on Nov 30, 2008 4:47:50 GMT -5
I think we could lock it and keep it stickied next to the new one for refrence, but start a new one for the new wars.
And 2 peace treaties seems ideal. 1 is passable, but 3 is too much and may lead to the scenario Rydon described.
|
|