So I was playing and thought of a new treaty type. Non aggression pacts. This would be for players who don't want to ally but want mutual assurance they wont be attacked for a set period of time. Perhaps have 1 day, 2 day, or 3 day variants and if both players agree neither will be allowed to enter the others provinces or attack their units. Welp, thats the idea.
Please log in to post a reply.
I really like the timer idea..... knowing you have 48 hours or 72 hours of safety, might help the inexperienced players feel more comfortable and not go inactive at the beginning of the round. Pretty boring when 80% are inactive on day 4.
It would be too binding. Non-aggression pacts IRL could never actually prevent either government from ordering an invasion. They were merely an agreement not to do so, not a physical preventative measure. They were broken several times in the Second World War, notably in Operation Barbarossa.
Surely this can be simulated by bilaterally promising peace?
Barbarossa was the rare exception about NAP's being broken in this era, yet it is always used to argue that it shouldn't be enforced in game mechanics.
Given the amount of alliances (share-maps) made in the first days, I'd say enforcing it would lead to a very static game where frightened players just sign NAP's with everyone.
They can make it that when you break a Non-agression pact you will lose popularity with AI and you won't be able to make another NAP again. So the option to break the NAP is available but there are consequences when you do that.
So what are your views on this? Do you think they should be implemented?K.Rokossovski wrote:
Barbarossa was the rare exception about NAP's being broken in this era, yet it is always used to argue that it shouldn't be enforced in game mechanics.Given the amount of alliances (share-maps) made in the first days, I'd say enforcing it would lead to a very static game where frightened players just sign NAP's with everyone.
maybe, but it needs tweaking
In a "normal" war game, I'd be in favor. In this particular one, I think the fear of battle of under-experienced players (it is quite common to make treaties with ALL their neighbors) leads to enough under-activity already.Lord Crayfish wrote:
So what are your views on this? Do you think they should be implemented?K.Rokossovski wrote:
Barbarossa was the rare exception about NAP's being broken in this era, yet it is always used to argue that it shouldn't be enforced in game mechanics.Given the amount of alliances (share-maps) made in the first days, I'd say enforcing it would lead to a very static game where frightened players just sign NAP's with everyone.
I see what y'all are saying as far as historically Non aggression pacts being broken and the fear of under experienced players using it. Not totally convinced it would be such an issue with noobs especially as they will just ally with each other most of the time or just go inactive.
I like the idea of being able to break non aggression pacts too but it kinda break one of the original purposes I had in mind which is mid/late game coalition vs coalition type scenarios. However, being able to break it and the consequences for doing so would be more historically accurate.
So yeah the idea could use some tweaking but I think it could work in the game.
What f the limit for members in a coalition is also the limit for how many NAPs you can have, so you can only have 3-4 pacts at once.
I would like to be able to turn defeated AI into puppet states, my idea would be:
1. You can make more straightforward trade with them in the stock market, which gets around the non-core province issues
2. Sometimes when I expand, I accidentally end up bordering the no.1 superpower, and then I need to deal with the risk of invasion, if I could create a buffer state between me and the superpower, and then the superpower invades this state it tells me that they're planning to invade me.
3. Less chance of it being abused, because you don't actually own any of the cities
Thats a pretty cool idea too.
thats a pretty good idea tho.
also, i nice tweek would be that: A player can broke his pact with another player but in return you LOSE 40% morale and popularity accross the nations.
i think this is balanced since you will sacrifice your ressources output for a backstab yk .
Also it will be a quite fun idea to be shamed in the news ... so all players know that he can't be trusted until the end of the game.
Having a system that courages the players to do what is right !
Looking at all this perhaps a decrease in AI popularity and morale hit of 5-10% (depending on country size?) could be a good option? Non-Aggression pacts had been broken many times before, in the end nothing is physically stopping an army from attacking you anyway after all, and when the situation was advantageous countries. Just taking a look at this Wikipedia page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_pact
Shows a horde of NAP’s that were broken, a huge amount during the ww2 era.
Please log in to post a reply.
