| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know if this has been discussed before (but i would be surprised if it hadn't). Basically an Agreement could be a long term contract between social organizations. It could change some in game mechanics, and would have to be renewed in regular periods. I think this could provide a lot of meaningful interaction and value to the community. Brainstorming:
Trade Agreement - The most basic form of Agreement, that most resembles a normal trade contract. The accepting party agrees to continually provide specified resources, items, or other goods to a specified location, in specified intervals. This can be in exchange for coin and/or goods, but also for other services. For instance useful if a settlement wants to hire a company to run a nearby mine for them.
Peace Treaty - Pretty self-explanatory. The two parts are unable to attack each other for a specified amount of time.
Safe Passage - The accepting party agrees to not attack any caravan moving through their area (settlement controlled hex), in exchange for coin, for a set period of time.
Defensive Pact - The accepting party agrees to join defense if the offering party has been declared war (or feud) on. Does not apply if the offering party declares war (or feud) (du'h. Might be tricky to specify therms. This could be useful in many different ways: Could be a step towards an alliance. A company could be accepting party in exchange for usage of a feudal manor in a settlement controlled hex. Etc.
Training Agreement - Accepting party accepts to continually provide 1 or more training slot in their settlement in exchange for coin.
And I'm sure there is more...
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think you touched on these a little:
Non-Aggression Pact: An agreement to deliver no hostilities toward another nation under most normal circumstances for an agreed upon time.
Mutual Defense Treaty: Signers of the treaty will provide an agreed upon aid in times when the other signer is declared war upon. Specific aid could be laid out in the treaty.
Cease Fire: A temporary call to stop hostilities while a more permanent Peace Treaty is negotiated.
Peace Treaty: A treaty to end a declaration of war where both signers agree to certain concessions. (Variation could be Annexation Treaty, wherein one side forces submission of the other into his/her territory).
Guarantee of Independence Treaty: Wherein one nation/settlement guarantees the sovereignty of another nation, provoking said nation to declare war on his attackers (Similar to mutual defense, but receiving nation is not obligated to declare war on attacker of the "guaranteeing" nation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Decius I would think that an agreement, in its simplest form, allows a contract between any two companies and/or settlements. Rather than one or two individuals being responsible for fulfilling a contract, the two social groups would be responsible for their sides of an agreement. Failure to deliver might mean a loss of influence (for companies) or DI (for settlements). So agreements would be able to withstand the departure of an individual, for example. Leadership of the organizations might also be exposed to alignment losses though, for failure to fulfill an agreement especially if the agreement was made during their rule.
I'd think there could also be a way to make a contract between a social organization and an individual.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not a bad idea, but also not necessary.
GW has plenty to do atm, may be good to implement it a long long long long way down the road.
Although using this mechanic will cut away alot of politics and etc that comes with warfare.
and yet another example:
Settlement 1 has an allinace with Settlement 2, Settlement 1 goes to war with Settlement 3, Settlement 2 forms an alliance with Settlement 3 to avoid war.... Each Settlement is forced to keep the alliances due to the new mechanic.
Sure you could come up with ways around it, but do you really want to force your Crafting Settlement to go to war beside your PVP Settlement every time just because of a defensive pact?
Honestly though, too much to implement at this point.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you are a crafting settlement, and have groups declare war on you a lot then you would want a defensive pact with a pvp group.
But if we are going to discuss contracts such as this, then we also need to discuss the opposites of these contracts.
If you are a crafting settlement and do not want a defensive pact because the pvp settlement may have a war declared on them... then you should risk having wars declared on you and no other group can help you.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... Hence the value of a unilateral defense agreement. It serves to signal to others that attacking this crafting company/settlement will be a Bad Idea, without brining them into wars against the more militant counterpart.
I'd love to see a series of entangling alliances that result in the assassination of a minor archduke put virtually everybody into the same war. I wonder if there's some kind of historical precedent ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The UnNamed Company will have contracts that are "contained" within an arrangement between the UNC and just that company or settlement.
If company "A" has paid for our services, that does not extend to their allies, unless that arrangement was also built into the contract. Contracts will always be short term and the total number of contracts will never rise to the point that they deplete or keep a majority of available targets off limits .
Bah had wrote this wall of text when i got a blue screen. Lucky for you :)
@Xeen, this is just a brainstorming, of course you are gonna find faults in the mechanisms. In your example the PvP settlement could offer a ''pledge to protect'' agreement which is sort of a one way defensive pact, for example.
@bluddwolf, you would only make an agreement with one other company/settlement, not it's allies. You two would decide the specifics, also how long it would run. You could decide to make it public or hidden.
The point i was trying to make was that if agreements became an important part of the game, there could be several benefits from it:
-Meaningful content for diplomats and spies.
Diplomats would have to meet to make agreements.
Hidden agreements could be made, that only spies could uncover.
There could be a tracking of previous agreements of a settlement that spies could uncover to see how they acted before.
Spies could steal from agreements where valuables (or even influence) is traded.
Spies could get caught, which would alert the organization from where the spy came from, and maybe some other penalties.
All this depending on skills in the game (and not by person) and gear as well.
And all this could lead to interesting scenarios.
- More options when a settlement is under attack. Do you send out a diplomat to negotiate for a surrender, maybe even become a vassal under the attacking force?
- The diplomatic landscape in general less black and white, much like the real world (which isn't always a good point, but here it might be). Cross overs, paranoia, allies spying on each other.
- Diplomatic connections could be more easily followed. A menu where you can search for all known agreements between all known companies/settlements for instance.
This might seem far fetched and hard to balanced (which i think it is), but it would be great if it was made possible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd love to see a series of entangling alliances that result in the assassination of a minor archduke put virtually everybody into the same war. I wonder if there's some kind of historical precedent ;)
Nothing like that has ever happened, why do you think it would happen in a fantasy game?
I believe DeciusBrutus may be referring to the assassination of archduke Franz Ferdinand, considered by many to have sparked the beginning of World War I.
