Treaty friction is boring

[Indirik]

Something that would make more RP sense would be that the treaties don't break, but that low treaty maintenance causes region stat drops. Though more realistic, in terms of gameplay I'd judge it even worse.

What? I don't see how that makes any sense at all. How does, for example, Riombara having an old Passage Rights treaty with Sint make the peasants of Avengmil less productive or loyal?

[Indirik]

Make friction slower for smaller realms--this solves the small realm complaint, doesn't it? And it makes more sense that a smaller realm would have fewer disagreements/red tape/etc

And if a small realm has a treaty with a big realm? Does it generate friction faster or slower?

Rather than just tweak friction rates, I really think that friction itself needs a more significant overhaul.

[Anaris]

I just don't like the mechanic at all, though. I think it's pretty bad RP. Treaties aren't things that cease to exist because they are unpopular, they remain permanently until either their term is up or they are actively broken by the head of states.

There are plenty of other aspects of BM that don't make a lot of sense IC, but are necessary for game balance.

One of the stated purposes of the treaty system is to make sure that you do not get the eternal pointless alliances that people have been known to keep.  The only way to ensure that is to cause treaties that are not actively used decay.

[vonGenf]

Traveling to do something totally unexciting is boring...as the description implies. Ever notice how rare legit traders are?

I used to play one and had fun, but maybe that's just me. Travelling and meeting people are opportunities for RP, clicking buttons alone in your corner is not.

I think some people would be happier with essentially autopilot treaty maintenance. Like the lord game, maybe to an extent, but you still need to do something. Maybe there just isn't enough material incentive for players to put up with the boring task.

Maybe so. I'd like to think we can come up with something more imaginative.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

There will be people who will always complain about the feature so long as it requires any amount of attention, because a lot of people are lazy. I think most people would be happier to set things up once and forget about it. If that can't be achieved, then they would be happier if there was something good that happened from the attention to treaties.

For lords, paying attention to the region gives money, and good reputation. Being a good lord can make people notice you more and respect your abilities more. Right now, you get not much notice if you are a good treaty maintainer (notice I did NOT say diplomat/ambassador, because even though that's the subclass that does treaty maintenance, that has no bearing on actual diplomatic skills as in actually writing to people). Really, have you ever heard anyone get credit for doing a good job keeping all the treaties at low friction?

[Chenier]

There will be people who will always complain about the feature so long as it requires any amount of attention, because a lot of people are lazy. I think most people would be happier to set things up once and forget about it. If that can't be achieved, then they would be happier if there was something good that happened from the attention to treaties.

I honestly don't think the old system to be that bad. It's really not a system problem, but an occasional people problem. It's not as if treaties are hard to break, you just click a button and they are gone.

The new treaty system, without any friction at all, is basically just adding nice customization options and RP potential to the previous system.

'cause honestly, the current system isn't favoring continental alliances in any way. The only way they can work is by having a set of tightly-knit rulers in all/most realms, and the way I see it treaty friction isn't going to create any more wars if such a context re-occurs. The problem is with rulers all being friends, not with alliances continuing until cancelled.

For lords, paying attention to the region gives money, and good reputation. Being a good lord can make people notice you more and respect your abilities more. Right now, you get not much notice if you are a good treaty maintainer (notice I did NOT say diplomat/ambassador, because even though that's the subclass that does treaty maintenance, that has no bearing on actual diplomatic skills as in actually writing to people). Really, have you ever heard anyone get credit for doing a good job keeping all the treaties at low friction?

Since treaties don't actually change anything yet, I doubt many people really care for bothering to maintain them, so the comparison wouldn't apply.

[Bedwyr]

'cause honestly, the current system isn't favoring continental alliances in any way.

It very strongly is, because you cannot be at war with the ally of your ally.  Yes, you can drop to neutral and fight, but you cannot take territory and it just gets silly.  That right there has caused more problems in the last year on the FEI than I want to think about.

[Chenier]

It very strongly is, because you cannot be at war with the ally of your ally.  Yes, you can drop to neutral and fight, but you cannot take territory and it just gets silly.  That right there has caused more problems in the last year on the FEI than I want to think about.

Honestly, that's why I don't sign any more alliances with D'Hara as I have. I know that if I lock myself in alliances, I'll be in trouble if the nobles of my realm ever demand some action. Or why I didn't seek for more alliances when I was king of RoF than I did, or why I rarely ever push to form alliances when in other positions.

Alliances have their benefits, but their drawbacks. Unless your goal is to avoid wars at all costs, and you have foreigners to back you up should rebellions brew, it's very much in the ruler's best interests to keep some possibilities of war open.

And if an old ruler was too eager to sign alliances, they are pretty easy to break anyhow.

Alliances don't prevent wars, the rulers who signed them and the panzy rulers who won't dear lower relations to peace with common allies or who can't sway his ally to lower his relations with your foe is the problem. In my experience, the "can't declare war on an ally's ally" limited the number of alliances that were agreed upon, as otherwise almost everyone would jump from peace to alliance.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

Speaking of which, Federations are always interesting. Federates always federate a new federate. Breaking it makes the other federates turn against the breaker. This leads to strange diplomatic stances sometimes.

Best just to leave it at peace if one wants some calm stuff.

[Indirik]

Federates always federate a new federate.

This is only partially true: http://bugs.battlemaster.org/view.php?id=5897

Being only partially transitive, you can end up with some weird behavior. Such as Westmoor being allied to Perdan and Federated with Ibladesh, while Perdan and Ibladesh are at war.  ???

[songqu88@gmail.com]

No no, that doesn't disprove what I said depending on the sequence. If Westmoor had already been Federates with Ibladesh when they got alliance with Perdan, then the Federation wouldn't kick in because the Alliance takes precedence.

Er, too difficult. Head hurt. Not trying to explain anymore.

[Indirik]

No no, that doesn't disprove what I said depending on the sequence. If Westmoor had already been Federates with Ibladesh when they got alliance with Perdan, then the Federation wouldn't kick in because the Alliance takes precedence.

That wouldn't have been allowed. Perdan was at war with Ibladesh. If Westmoor was federated to Ibladesh, then they could not have allied with Perdan because of the Perdan/Ibby war.

The federation transience bug only kicks in when two separately federated groups try to merge. If A/B are federated, and C/D are separately federated. In this case if B and C federate, then A/C become federated, as do B/D. However, A/D do NOT become federated, and could theoretically even be at war.  Thus A/B/C are federated, as are B/C/D. But A/D are at war. This particular arrangement should be impossible, given the way diplomacy is supposed to work.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

Man...head hurts. Too complicated. In my mind it's war or not war. That's pretty much my idiot's reduction, which probably works just as well anyway.