Signing treaties into effect

[Chenier]

his treaty was drafted by Guillaume Chénier, Hetman and Mirovoy Kaznatchey of Imperskoe Viys'ko iz Fheuv'na, Senator of Iato, Ambassador of Imperskoe Viys'ko iz Fheuv'na on 2011-08-18.

You can not sign treaties into effect that you (or another member of your family) created.

In general, this makes sense. Unless the realm's only ambassador is also the ruler. Does that mean I can't propose any treaties unless I convince someone to become a diplomat somehow so that I may then promote him and ask him to sign my treaty?

Makes no sense. The ruler ought to be able to validate any treaty on his own, whether he drafted it himself, or another of his family, or anyone really.

[LilWolf]

In general, this makes sense. Unless the realm's only ambassador is also the ruler. Does that mean I can't propose any treaties unless I convince someone to become a diplomat somehow so that I may then promote him and ask him to sign my treaty?

Makes no sense. The ruler ought to be able to validate any treaty on his own, whether he drafted it himself, or another of his family, or anyone really.

I agree, but the devs probably don't. The limit is there to force the spread of power so that there is an ambassador who isn't your family member. You can still have the other realm propose treaties and just sign them, I think.

[vonGenf]

The problem is that the IR forbids you from asking someone else to switch to the diplomat class.

Which brings me back to a point I made long ago: ambassadors would make more sense as a realm officer than as a class.

[Jens Namtrah]

The problem is that the IR forbids you from asking someone else to switch to the diplomat class.

No they don't - they prohibit you from FORCING someone to, or punishing them if they won't.

You are more than welcome to announce the realm needs diplomats, and to offer lucrative rewards for those taking up the class.

[Anaris]

In general, this makes sense. Unless the realm's only ambassador is also the ruler. Does that mean I can't propose any treaties unless I convince someone to become a diplomat somehow so that I may then promote him and ask him to sign my treaty?

Makes no sense. The ruler ought to be able to validate any treaty on his own, whether he drafted it himself, or another of his family, or anyone really.

The intent is to make sure the ruler isn't just keeping all the diplomacy to himself.

[vonGenf]

No they don't - they prohibit you from FORCING someone to, or punishing them if they won't.

You are more than welcome to announce the realm needs diplomats, and to offer lucrative rewards for those taking up the class.

Well, sure, but you CAN take overs without priest support. It's an effective method, but not needed.

If you can't sign treaties without diplomats, then it's another problem. It means you have to force someone to be diplomat, otherwise the realm is crippled in the same way it would be if it had no Judge or no Banker.

[fodder]

you don't need to be the realm that propose the treaty?

[vonGenf]

you don't need to be the realm that propose the treaty?

Are you being serious here?

Just to take your point to the extreme, you're saying it's ok not to be able to declare war if you don't have a diplomat?

[Chenier]

The intent is to make sure the ruler isn't just keeping all the diplomacy to himself.

In a realm of 10 people? I'm sharing all the diplomatic messages to everyone, that's way more sharing than most big realms of 2-3 ambassadors do.

Not to mention that, you know, ambassadors are a relatively new addition.

No they don't - they prohibit you from FORCING someone to, or punishing them if they won't.

You are more than welcome to announce the realm needs diplomats, and to offer lucrative rewards for those taking up the class.

That's dumb. Ambassadors wield a lot of power, just giving the position to whoever is greedy enough to accept the offer is far from being a good idea. Gold is the last thing that should be motivating ambassadors.

I've already stated that we could use another ambassador or two. Nobody answered the call. This is as far as anyone should go to fetch any certain classes.

Are you being serious here?

Just to take your point to the extreme, you're saying it's ok not to be able to declare war if you don't have a diplomat?

That's basically what they are saying. They seem to believe that we don't have more ambassadors in the game because people don't let them. That's not the case. While there are a few diplomats rulers don't want to promote, we mostly don't have enough ambassadors because not enough people want to play them. Because, you know, you can only lead a !@#$ty tiny unit when you are one? Meaning it's only most advantageous to courtiers and priests, who are a minority to begin with. And every hour priests spend on diplomacy, they don't spend on spreading the faith, whereas courtiers usually need to stick to within the realm for maintenance work more, while ambassadors need to physically travel abroad to sign treaties.

[Jens Namtrah]

I've already stated that we could use another ambassador or two. Nobody answered the call. This is as far as anyone should go to fetch any certain classes.

Then I guess your realm will just die out, if you are the only one who cares about it. Bummer for you.

Or you could try changing your ideas about it, and offer incentives.

[Jens Namtrah]

Are you being serious here?

Just to take your point to the extreme, you're saying it's ok not to be able to declare war if you don't have a diplomat?

Are you saying the new treaty system prevents you from declaring war without a signed treaty?

[Shizzle]

Then I guess your realm will just die out, if you are the only one who cares about it. Bummer for you.

Or you could try changing your ideas about it, and offer incentives.

I don't want to play a game where realms can cease to exist because of that. This only implicitly forces players with some sense of responsability or attachment to their realm to become Diplomats against their will - which would violate the IR.

[Solari]

That's basically what they are saying. They seem to believe that we don't have more ambassadors in the game because people don't let them. That's not the case. While there are a few diplomats rulers don't want to promote, we mostly don't have enough ambassadors because not enough people want to play them. Because, you know, you can only lead a !@#$ty tiny unit when you are one? Meaning it's only most advantageous to courtiers and priests, who are a minority to begin with. And every hour priests spend on diplomacy, they don't spend on spreading the faith, whereas courtiers usually need to stick to within the realm for maintenance work more, while ambassadors need to physically travel abroad to sign treaties.

The problem you have described sounds like a huge opportunity for a politically-attuned and scrupulously neutral religion with a corps of priestly ambassadors.   Like Jesuits or Maesters (after a fashion).  Seems even more useful on a continent like BT.

[Bedwyr]

Are you saying the new treaty system prevents you from declaring war without a signed treaty?

It will, actually, once the system goes into effect.  It was one of the concerns I had when discussing the system that we were making it literally impossible for a realm to function without a diplomat unrelated to the Ruler.

[Chenier]

The problem you have described sounds like a huge opportunity for a politically-attuned and scrupulously neutral religion with a corps of priestly ambassadors.   Like Jesuits or Maesters (after a fashion).  Seems even more useful on a continent like BT.

While it could be interesting, it would be unreasonable to require such a thing for the system to work. But since I have little faith in the religion system as it currently is, I wouldn't even count on that ever developing to a functional level.

And this is a critic that I have maintained for a very, very long time.