Forum    Members    Search    FAQ

Board index » Your Things » Your Games




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 901 posts ] 
 
Author Message
 Post Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 1:19 pm 
Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter This user is a Tool! Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter
Offline
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 9:17 pm
Posts: 747
Oh how exciting, I was right! ;D

Also, CroverusRaven has an amazing capital, I suggest you folks get your envoys on their feet and here!

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 9:58 pm 
    User avatar
    This user has been published!
    Offline
    Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 7:53 pm
    Posts: 3154
    A couple of folks have started interacting, and I get copied in on some of the conversations, and there's a whole lot of "50 turn treaties" and "10,000 Schmucker" penalty clauses being bandied about.

    I'm all for that - except that "50 turns" is a bit long for a game that's only 7 turns old.

    I'm going to have to come up with some better rules for these sorts of things, since otherwise I'm going to end up being a lawyer and judge trying to trawl through alliances and deciding if someone is in breach of contract.

    I'm going to rule that for any Schmucker penalty to be enforced, the contract will have to be a public treaty, made on the forum.

    My draft ideas for treaties are as follows:

    Non-Agression Pact - 1000 Schmucker Penalty
    Neither side to attack the other's units

    Territory Pact - 2000 Schmucker Penalty
    Neither side to move into very clearly specified territory

    Alliance - 3000 Schmucker Penalty
    Non-Aggression and Both sides share a turn, units can stack together, etc.

    Rather than have time limits on treaties, a treaty is in effect until broken. You can break treaty by violating the terms and paying the penalty, OR by giving a full turn's warning that you are going to break the treaty, with no penalty. Such warning will have to be made via the forum AND in the player's orders.

    Thoughts, comments?

    _________________
    Erfworld Empires X Version 3

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 10:00 pm 
    Offline
    Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:52 pm
    Posts: 572
    Would these changes retconjure any existing treaties?

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 10:03 pm 
    User avatar
    This user has been published!
    Offline
    Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 7:53 pm
    Posts: 3154
    They would have to. You are welcome to create your own treaties and make them as complicated as you desire, but I will not be enforcing them. It will be a matter of honour between players to pay the appropriate penalty if you break the terms of the private treaties as you understand them.

    _________________
    Erfworld Empires X Version 3

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 12:38 am 
    Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter This user is a Tool! Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 9:17 pm
    Posts: 747
    I think this treaty system is pretty sound, Dave. I'm not 100% on "must be a public treaty" though. While it does make it harsh on a player who breaks a treaty, it pushes negotiators into the light. While my Ruler loves transparency, I kind of enjoy knife-in-the-dark politics.

    Rules question: With the advent of "Public Forum Treaty" does this mean that a treaty can be negotiated and signed entirely via Book of the Thread, with no requirement for face-to-face meeting?

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 12:41 am 
    Offline
    Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:52 pm
    Posts: 572
    Silversought wrote:
    I think this treaty system is pretty sound, Dave. I'm not 100% on "must be a public treaty" though. While it does make it harsh on a player who breaks a treaty, it pushes negotiators into the light. While my Ruler loves transparency, I kind of enjoy knife-in-the-dark politics.

    Rules question: With the advent of "Public Forum Treaty" does this mean that a treaty can be negotiated and signed entirely via Book of the Thread, with no requirement for face-to-face meeting?


    I got the impression that the public treaty was only of we want Dave to enforce the treaty.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 12:58 am 
    Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter This user is a Tool! Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 9:17 pm
    Posts: 747
    GWvsJohn wrote:
    Silversought wrote:
    I think this treaty system is pretty sound, Dave. I'm not 100% on "must be a public treaty" though. While it does make it harsh on a player who breaks a treaty, it pushes negotiators into the light. While my Ruler loves transparency, I kind of enjoy knife-in-the-dark politics.

    Rules question: With the advent of "Public Forum Treaty" does this mean that a treaty can be negotiated and signed entirely via Book of the Thread, with no requirement for face-to-face meeting?


    I got the impression that the public treaty was only of we want Dave to enforce the treaty.


    I did not question that. The first point pertained to the inability to have the sample treaties enforced if you don't want to make it public. It's not a big deal, but I figure it's still pretty convenient if both parties pledge the sample treaty in a PM to both Dave & the other party.

    The second point was asking if we could negotiate and sign the public treaties entirely via Book of the Thread (despite the security nightmare that represents), rather than leadership communication prior to signing the treaty.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:06 am 
    User avatar
    This user has been published!
    Offline
    Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 7:53 pm
    Posts: 3154
    Silversought wrote:
    GWvsJohn wrote:
    Silversought wrote:
    I think this treaty system is pretty sound, Dave. I'm not 100% on "must be a public treaty" though. While it does make it harsh on a player who breaks a treaty, it pushes negotiators into the light. While my Ruler loves transparency, I kind of enjoy knife-in-the-dark politics.

    Rules question: With the advent of "Public Forum Treaty" does this mean that a treaty can be negotiated and signed entirely via Book of the Thread, with no requirement for face-to-face meeting?


    I got the impression that the public treaty was only of we want Dave to enforce the treaty.


    I did not question that. The first point pertained to the inability to have the sample treaties enforced if you don't want to make it public. It's not a big deal, but I figure it's still pretty convenient if both parties pledge the sample treaty in a PM to both Dave & the other party.

    The second point was asking if we could negotiate and sign the public treaties entirely via Book of the Thread (despite the security nightmare that represents), rather than leadership communication prior to signing the treaty.



    This is all draft at the moment. I don't suppose the treaties have to be public via the forum.
    And of course you can negotiate anything you like via the book - you'll just have everyone else watching.

    _________________
    Erfworld Empires X Version 3

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 7:01 am 
    Has collected at least one unit Here for the 10th Anniversary
    Offline
    Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 9:25 am
    Posts: 659
    I'd be alright with formalizing treaties in a few generic forms, even making them public. But I feel like the smucker penalties you suggested are a bit low. If a treaty is to provide safety, it seems that the penalties should be higher than one or two turns' city income, so that it can't easily be paid.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 10:23 am 
    User avatar
    Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter Pin-up Calendar and New Art Team Supporter Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit This user is a Tool! Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:40 pm
    Posts: 326
    I would imagine that schmucker would be negotiable, though I think some sort of max limit might be nice.

    (We will only agree to this treaty if you put a million Schmucker penalty on it, if you do not agree then you were not committed to it!).

    Plus if the side finds a way to hurt you, without breaking the conditions, then it would put you in a big bind.

    Might be hard to figure a decent figure for a limit though.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 11:39 am 
    Offline
    Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:58 pm
    Posts: 625
    It depends on if Dave wants this to be a war heavy game. In general I think alliances should be public because although being part of an alliance can be a detterant to war; not knowing if your target has 5 allies or none is an even greater one.

    I don't think Dave can enforce the treaties unless specifies the treaties we can make (like he did above).

    edit for some grammer mistakes. I'm sure there are more


    Last edited by HerbieRai on Wed Mar 19, 2014 12:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 12:11 pm 
    Has collected at least one unit Here for the 10th Anniversary
    Offline
    Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 9:25 am
    Posts: 659
    I'm just spitballing here, but maybe an upper limit of 5000 per city of the larger side? That would allow it to scale with empire size. A 10.000 smucker limit is huge for a 2-city side, but much smaller for one with 5 or 6 cities.

    And I agree with Herbie re: public alliances.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:27 pm 
    Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter This user is a Tool! Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 9:17 pm
    Posts: 747
    HerbieRai wrote:
    It depends on if Dave wants this to be a war heavy game. In general I think alliances should be public because although being part of an alliance can be a detterant to war; not knowing if your target has 5 allies or none is an even greater one.

    I don't think Dave can enforce the treaties unless specifies the treaties we can make (like he did above).

    edit for some grammer mistakes. I'm sure there are more


    Agreed, that would make it pretty frustrating for him, since individually designed treaties can be crazy. xD

    Anyhow, maybe the schmucker penalty could be fixed to your city income. Break a non-aggression pact, and you lose schmuckers = city income for one turn. Territory pact and you lose schmuckers = total city income for two turns. Alliance and you lose total city income for three turns. It could be either "lose instantly" or "Your cities do not generate income for X turns".

    It'd be guaranteed to hurt anybody, scaling happily with cities possessed and treaty level.

    I would love it if the official treaties could be done inconspicuously, but I see HerbieRai's point.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 3:14 pm 
    Offline
    Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:58 pm
    Posts: 625
    There is a difference between treaties and alliances. A non agression or territory treaty could be secret, since the two sides involved wouldn't have any change to their gameplay. It's alliances that cause differences in the game since alliances can cause a problem with turn orders. If A and B are allied with C, but not allied with eachother what happens? Do they share a turn? Can A wait till B moves units, then in the same turn move their units into unoccupied locations to take over thier weakpoints? If A and B do not know they are secretly allied together and they try to attack eachother what happens? No one would be breaking their alliance yet someone would have to.

    While treaties details can be secret, and non alliance treaties as well, I think if two or more sides are in an alliance the others need to know.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 8:53 pm 
    Has collected at least one unit Here for the 10th Anniversary
    Offline
    Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 9:25 am
    Posts: 659
    [book]
    Jimmeny,

    We have dispatched a warlord to your given coordinates. We hope he finds his way safely, and are eager to participate in the conference.

    Thank you in advance for hosting us.

    Regards,
    Jadis Tassadar
    [/book]

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 1:02 am 
    Offline
    Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 7:52 am
    Posts: 426
    [book]
    Jadis Tassadar,

    We look forward to your warlord's arrival .We already have our first guest who arrived a bit early, but once all expected guest have arrived we will hold a grand show for all and then discussions can begin. While your warlords wait in the city they are free to explore, we have nothing to hide from our future allies. We also offer to cover the rations of any who stay in the capital while awaiting the show.

    Humbly,
    Jimmeny Henderson
    [/book]

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 4:24 pm 
    User avatar
    Has collected at least one unit Here for the 10th Anniversary
    Offline
    Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 4:17 am
    Posts: 862
    As for the turn issues, that depends on if the allies share turns while allied by default, or if that's a separate thing entirely, or nonexistent at all (since this is still in reform). I do agree that alliances should be public, and other treaties can be private or public. I also assume that non-aggression treaty makes units not auto-engage each other even while unled.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:24 am 
    User avatar
    This user has been published!
    Offline
    Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 7:53 pm
    Posts: 3154
    Turn 7 has been processed.

    Deo, HerbieRai, and Brimstone are now on turn 8.


    Thanks for the feedback on the treaty ideas.


    Here's the current thinking:

    Non-Agression Pact - minimum 1000 Schmucker Penalty
    Neither side to attack the other's units (if there is no Non-Agression Pact, the sides are assumed to be at war and will auto-engage)
    May be PM'd, and confirmed with GM.

    Territory Pact - minimum 2000 Schmucker Penalty
    Non-Agression Pact AND Neither side to move into very clearly specified territory
    May be PM'd, and confirmed with GM.

    Alliance - minimum 3000 Schmucker Penalty
    Non-Aggression Pact and Both sides share a turn, units can stack together, etc.
    A Power may not be Allied to a Power that is allied to a non-allied power (ie, A and B are allies. Neither can Ally with C, unless both ally with C)
    Must be declared publicly via the Forum "Book"


    Rather than have time limits on treaties, a treaty is in effect until broken. You can break treaty by violating the terms and paying the penalty, OR by giving a full turn's warning that you are going to break the treaty, with no penalty. Such warning will have to be made via the forum AND in the player's orders.

    The Maximum Schmucker Penalty on any Treaty may not exceed three times the smaller sides total per turn income.


    Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions?

    _________________
    Erfworld Empires X Version 3

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:33 am 
    Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter This user is a Tool! Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 9:17 pm
    Posts: 747
    Looks good to me. Clearly defined form, minimums, maximums, procedure. Whoo!~

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:37 am 
    User avatar
    This user has been published!
    Offline
    Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 7:53 pm
    Posts: 3154
    [BOOK]

    Hail Jimmeny of the Moppits.

    We are the Grand Duchy. We have read of your Great Show, and are en-route to your Capital to witness the discussion and share our wisdom.

    Our emissary, marked in Red, has already entered your territory. In order to prevent the needless effusion of blood, we ask that you agree to the standard Non-Aggression Pact between our peoples, at the standard penalty rate.

    What do you say?

    Best Regards,

    Premier Sinkerwell
    Image

    [/BOOK]

    _________________
    Erfworld Empires X Version 3

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
    Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
     
    Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 901 posts ] 

    Board index » Your Things » Your Games


    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: Atrius Night and 7 guests

     
     

     
    You cannot post new topics in this forum
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum
    You cannot post attachments in this forum

    Search for:
    Jump to: