Signing treaties into effect

[Solari]

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.

I still think the new diplomacy system functions fine by requiring a second diplomat.  It just requires delegation and probably a shuffle of characters.  There probably aren't 3 or 4 diplomats to be had in every realm, no.  That just means the incentives need to pick up or some redistribution of characters needs to happen.

I'd like to take this opportunity to argue for more explicit recruiting on the forums.  Tell people what your realm needs.  It's not crass; it's providing an opportunity for players to find a role they'd like.

[Chenier]

I still think the new diplomacy system functions fine by requiring a second diplomat.  It just requires delegation and probably a shuffle of characters.  There probably aren't 3 or 4 diplomats to be had in every realm, no.  That just means the incentives need to pick up or some redistribution of characters needs to happen.

I'd like to take this opportunity to argue for more explicit recruiting on the forums.  Tell people what your realm needs.  It's not crass; it's providing an opportunity for players to find a role they'd like.

No, it's forcing a role upon players for the greater good of the realm that they would not like to have. Just as some people become courtiers when the realm has major control issues or when they become priests because a foreign faith is attacking: not because they enjoy their new role, but because they make the sacrifice to see their realm survive.

This is yet another example of forcing players to play a certain way, and giving them crippling penalties if they can't or don't want to.

And don't assume that having two ambassadors means that there will be two people doing diplomacy. If you force it upon players, they will have ambassadors who will be disallowed from doing anything else than signing what the ruler has drafted if they have to in order to adapt. And you'll have more cases of people violating the IRs to try to force someone to fill in the realm's needs.

Specialization classes should always *help* the realm, but *never* be required. There's a reason why only a minority of characters pick these classes. And it's not with our declining player base that things will improve.

[vonGenf]

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.

Ooooh! I call dibs on a Bene Gesserit guild!

[Chenier]

Ooooh! I call dibs on a Bene Gesserit guild!

Found it. Nothing's stopping you.

[Chenier]

The fact remains, however, that you need two unrelated nobles to sign any treaties into effect. That means that regardless of the realm size, you need 2 ambassadors/rulers, not of the same family. Got 60 nobles? That's all fine. Got 15 or less? Good luck! Ambassadors are glorified courtiers, the ambassador game is very unappealing to a lot of players. Since Fheuv'n does'nt have anyone that's not a warrior other than the ruler, it can't even make declarations of conquest or plunder, since being a ruler isn't enough and I need a random schmuck to rubber-stamp all of my decisions.

This is extremely poor game design. You can't claim to want more wars, and then put such a huge restriction on small realms in their ability to do so.

[Perth]

Got 60 nobles? That's all fine.

Hardly.

Eston has 40-50 nobles and I've asked several times for anyone interested in being an Ambassador to no avail. *shrugs*

[Bedwyr]

Agreed, and reworking this is part of the discussions on modifying the treaty system before it goes live.

[fodder]

thing about declarations and treaties is that, you shouldn't need some other person else to draft and to do 1 sided things like declarations.

[Chenier]

thing about declarations and treaties is that, you shouldn't need some other person else to draft and to do 1 sided things like declarations.

You shouldn't need anyone else than the ruler... Ruler should be allowed to sign his own treaties into effect.

[fodder]

treaties? no. because you have to have someone else take it to the other realm to sign, don't you? i think it's perfectly fine for co-operative stuff to require effort on the players' part, whilst having 1-sided stuff like war, etc to not require anyone else.

want allies to fight together? get a treaty signed. if your nobles can't be bothered? no treaties... good excuse for them to go and pick fight with everyone

[Chenier]

treaties? no. because you have to have someone else take it to the other realm to sign, don't you? i think it's perfectly fine for co-operative stuff to require effort on the players' part, whilst having 1-sided stuff like war, etc to not require anyone else.

want allies to fight together? get a treaty signed. if your nobles can't be bothered? no treaties... good excuse for them to go and pick fight with everyone

The ruler could travel himself, you know?

And no, that's not a good excuse for them to pick a fight with everyone. They'll just stick to good ol' wiki treaties. If new treaties are too much hassle, people just won't bother adopting them.

[fodder]

under treaty system, what's the default stance regarding units in region if not allied?

[egamma]

under treaty system, what's the default stance regarding units in region if not allied?

AFAIK, it will still respect your unit settings:
Murderous: attack anyone who isn't in your realm
Aggressive: attack those with war/neutral
normal: attack those at war
defensive: attack those at war
evasive: avoid fighting

[Chenier]

AFAIK, it will still respect your unit settings:
Murderous: attack anyone who isn't in your realm
Aggressive: attack those with war/neutral
normal: attack those at war
defensive: attack those at war
evasive: avoid fighting

Except that "war", "neutral", and such will no longer exist. The point of the new treaty system is to completely replace the old diplomacy system, unless the devs changed their minds or I misunderstood.

[fodder]

so yeah, that's the point... what happens if not allied? just fight?