Mad King Walrus
Member
- Reaction score
- 33
Sorry if this thread is technically dead.
I've just returned from a few years hiatus.
The biggest thing I agree upon with Diplomacy changes is that I 100% believe Tribes should have an option to mutually agree upon a time frame that is provided to choose from to enforce the agreement.
For instance, if Tribe A wants to NAP with Tribe B, both tribes agree to a one month NAP, they then go to their respective Tribal Diplomacy pages and would enter tribe name and length of the NAP to be put in place.
Now during this one month NAP it cannot be broken. You can consider this also in the terms of a ceasefire or a demilitarized timeframe.
IF we are sticking to historically accurate depictions and gameplay of tribal leaders, as in: Gauls, Goths, Vandals, etc, then yeah I'd expect there to be no legitimate "Diplomacy" as it was strictly verbal agreements as there was no real treaties.
Now if we look at the actual units we use in this game, this is not TRIBAL, it's Medieval. We start Tribal and progress to a point that would be considered in the Iron and Steel age.
These are times where kingdoms would form and sign actual NAPS and Treaties. Could these be broken? Yes of course, but there was massive backlash on those that did. It was considered dishonorable unless there was a valid reason to do so.
So in my opinion coming at this from a History teachers stand point, I absolutely agree that if two tribes agree to NAP each other for one month, or ally for one month, they should not be able to break that "signed" agreement, unless a valid action of war is registered to break the pact.
What would be a valid action of war? A valid action of war would be to supply, support, or otherwise assist anyone enemies of the tribe that you are NAP or Ally with. This would be something that is tracked. The game would register Tribe A is enemies with Tribe C, Tribe B is NAP with Tribe A. Tribe B then has two players send support to Tribe C to defend an attack from Tribe A, this would be seen as a valid action of war and would AUTOMATICALLY cancel the NAP or Alliance with the corresponding tribe and each tribe would be noticed by ingame message or prompt.
Would this take a good bit of time and coding? Absolutely.
Would it add a really cool, historically factual mechanic to the game? You bet ya.
This would of course in my opinion by an option that would be considered world by world. Just like any other setting or option.
If you have any CONSTRUCTIVE criticism, please let me know. If you wanna talk shit about the idea, you're not worth the time nor the energy.
Thanks.
-Dormunger
I've just returned from a few years hiatus.
The biggest thing I agree upon with Diplomacy changes is that I 100% believe Tribes should have an option to mutually agree upon a time frame that is provided to choose from to enforce the agreement.
For instance, if Tribe A wants to NAP with Tribe B, both tribes agree to a one month NAP, they then go to their respective Tribal Diplomacy pages and would enter tribe name and length of the NAP to be put in place.
Now during this one month NAP it cannot be broken. You can consider this also in the terms of a ceasefire or a demilitarized timeframe.
IF we are sticking to historically accurate depictions and gameplay of tribal leaders, as in: Gauls, Goths, Vandals, etc, then yeah I'd expect there to be no legitimate "Diplomacy" as it was strictly verbal agreements as there was no real treaties.
Now if we look at the actual units we use in this game, this is not TRIBAL, it's Medieval. We start Tribal and progress to a point that would be considered in the Iron and Steel age.
These are times where kingdoms would form and sign actual NAPS and Treaties. Could these be broken? Yes of course, but there was massive backlash on those that did. It was considered dishonorable unless there was a valid reason to do so.
So in my opinion coming at this from a History teachers stand point, I absolutely agree that if two tribes agree to NAP each other for one month, or ally for one month, they should not be able to break that "signed" agreement, unless a valid action of war is registered to break the pact.
What would be a valid action of war? A valid action of war would be to supply, support, or otherwise assist anyone enemies of the tribe that you are NAP or Ally with. This would be something that is tracked. The game would register Tribe A is enemies with Tribe C, Tribe B is NAP with Tribe A. Tribe B then has two players send support to Tribe C to defend an attack from Tribe A, this would be seen as a valid action of war and would AUTOMATICALLY cancel the NAP or Alliance with the corresponding tribe and each tribe would be noticed by ingame message or prompt.
Would this take a good bit of time and coding? Absolutely.
Would it add a really cool, historically factual mechanic to the game? You bet ya.
This would of course in my opinion by an option that would be considered world by world. Just like any other setting or option.
If you have any CONSTRUCTIVE criticism, please let me know. If you wanna talk shit about the idea, you're not worth the time nor the energy.
Thanks.
-Dormunger
