Announce post #3197: Treaties and relations

AutoposterAutoposter BotMember, Bot Posts: 403 ✭✭✭✭
7/16/2021 at 0:15
Keroc, the Starborn
Everyone
Treaties and relations

Hey folks!

Today I'm bringing you some more tools involved around treaties, so you have more agency in city-to-city roleplay. We've generally heard that you guys want to do more things that effect the world as a result of roleplay, so here are some things you can now do.

New commands:

CITY TREATY <#> SCRIBE COPY
- This allows you to create a physical copy of a treaty for 500 gold.

CITY TREATY <#> ADD <organization>
- Instead of offering the treaty to an organization, you add them before offering.

CITY TREATY <#> PROPOSE <term>
- You can now propose an action to be executed as part of accepting a treaty. Those of you who remember the old war system will find some of these terms familiar.
They are: Alliance, Peace, Ceasefire, Surrender, Ally, and Enemy.
I'll likely add some more things you can do, but for now this is what we will start with.

CITY TREATY <#> DEMAND <term>
- Much like proposing, you can demand something.
They are: Surrender, Ally, and Enemy.
Again, I may add some more but for now this is all I'm adding.

CITY TREATY <#> OFFER
- This is how you offer the treaty. Note that you no longer specify the organization here.

CITY TREATY <#> DISSOLVE
- This command is how you void a treaty on friendly terms. Both parties must do this.

City commands:

CITY RELATIONS
- This will show you your formal relations with other organizations.

CITY DECLARE WAR ON <organization>
- You can officially declare war on an organization. Only the War Minister or city leader can do this.

Now that you've seen the commands, let's talk a little about what they do.

Although it is now possible to declare war on another city, I'm just going to be pretty clear that it only has very small mechanical effects. Much like troops, we're just wanting to give you roleplay tools to use in a formal way. You could already do most this through a public post and existing commands if you wanted to. It does not open up anyone to open PK, so don't fret too much!

That said, here is what some of the relationship states do:

War:
Troop conscript cost is doubled, city guards will attack citizens of organizations you are at war with.

Peace:
Organizations at peace cannot have troops attack each other.

Alliance:
Same as peace, except troops can march past each other if fortified.

Ceasefire:
This is mostly to end the war state. No other effects.

Surrender:
Troops cannot be ordered if you are in a state of surrender.

Ally:
Ally someone to the organization. Not permanent.

Enemy:
Enemy someone to the organization. Not permanent.

That's about it. Mostly just some more fun tools to play around with.

Enjoy!

Penned by my hand on Kinsday, the 11th of Midsummer, in the year 496 MA.
Saltz

Comments

  • TetchtaTetchta Member Posts: 701 ✭✭✭✭
    Are "organization" and "city" synonyms here? Or are they used differently on purpose? Like can Bloodloch declare war on the Illuminae, or is this entirely a city-to-city thing?
    "We're taught Lord Acton's axiom: all power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. I believed that when I started these books, but I don't believe it's always true any more. Power doesn't always corrupt. What I believe is always true about power is that power always reveals. When you have enough power to do what you always wanted to do, then you see what the guy always wanted to do."
    -Robert Caro
  • KerocKeroc A small cupboardMember, Administrator, Immortal Posts: 516 admin
    edited July 16
    I coded it so that its possible from a code front, but it is barred to only cities for now. We might use it for events and the like, so you can technically be at war with any organization if we choose.

    Tetchta
  • DamonicusDamonicus Member Posts: 624 ✭✭✭✭
    Could we get this for guilds as well? I feel like it could be a great roleplay for guilds to interact with each other. 

    EleneTetchta
  • EleneElene Member Posts: 308 ✭✭✭✭
    I'd like this for guilds as well, but expand it to allow for "non-aggression, support, or research" relationship options.

    For example, I can totally see the Archivists entering a research treaty with the Ascendril to share and corroborate information on, say, elemental planes, or anything technology related.

    Or the Archivists entering into a research or treaty with the Teradrim about the Pillars (especially with what Albedi God it binds beneath them) or Undeath or the Earthen Plane.

    Or the Archivists entering a support-based treaty with the Syssin on delivering or receiving field research/intel on people of interest.
    DamonicusTetchtaFyrren
  • TetchtaTetchta Member Posts: 701 ✭✭✭✭
    On a similar note, give guilds tiny militias 👀
    "We're taught Lord Acton's axiom: all power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. I believed that when I started these books, but I don't believe it's always true any more. Power doesn't always corrupt. What I believe is always true about power is that power always reveals. When you have enough power to do what you always wanted to do, then you see what the guy always wanted to do."
    -Robert Caro
    Lin
  • KerocKeroc A small cupboardMember, Administrator, Immortal Posts: 516 admin
    Elene said:

    I'd like this for guilds as well, but expand it to allow for "non-aggression, support, or research" relationship options.

    For example, I can totally see the Archivists entering a research treaty with the Ascendril to share and corroborate information on, say, elemental planes, or anything technology related.

    Or the Archivists entering into a research or treaty with the Teradrim about the Pillars (especially with what Albedi God it binds beneath them) or Undeath or the Earthen Plane.

    Or the Archivists entering a support-based treaty with the Syssin on delivering or receiving field research/intel on people of interest.

    If there's some mechanical benefit from 'support' or 'research' I could do this. Something small.

  • TetchtaTetchta Member Posts: 701 ✭✭✭✭
    I thought this entire feature was for roleplay purposes? Why does there need to be a mechanical benefit for a wider breadth of treaty options?
    "We're taught Lord Acton's axiom: all power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. I believed that when I started these books, but I don't believe it's always true any more. Power doesn't always corrupt. What I believe is always true about power is that power always reveals. When you have enough power to do what you always wanted to do, then you see what the guy always wanted to do."
    -Robert Caro
  • EleneElene Member Posts: 308 ✭✭✭✭
    Keroc said:
    I'd like this for guilds as well, but expand it to allow for "non-aggression, support, or research" relationship options.

    For example, I can totally see the Archivists entering a research treaty with the Ascendril to share and corroborate information on, say, elemental planes, or anything technology related.

    Or the Archivists entering into a research or treaty with the Teradrim about the Pillars (especially with what Albedi God it binds beneath them) or Undeath or the Earthen Plane.

    Or the Archivists entering a support-based treaty with the Syssin on delivering or receiving field research/intel on people of interest.
    If there's some mechanical benefit from 'support' or 'research' I could do this. Something small.
    What about a pledging of gold from both sides to act as research grants or something? Can't think of anything for support.

    A support treaty would mostly be a declaration of intent and involves RP anyway, I don't see anything mechanical that needs to be added for it.
    Tetchta
  • KerocKeroc A small cupboardMember, Administrator, Immortal Posts: 516 admin
    edited July 19
    Tetchta said:

    I thought this entire feature was for roleplay purposes? Why does there need to be a mechanical benefit for a wider breadth of treaty options?

    Then there's not much point in adding it to the terms section. Just write it into the treaty as you already can.

    Edit: Maybe you guys meant adding it to CITY RELATIONS? Still waking up.

    TetchtaJaamir
  • EleneElene Member Posts: 308 ✭✭✭✭
    CITY TREATY <#> PROPOSE <term>
    - You can now propose an action to be executed as part of accepting a treaty. Those of you who remember the old war system will find some of these terms familiar.
    They are: Alliance, Peace, Ceasefire, Surrender, Ally, and Enemy.
    I'll likely add some more things you can do, but for now this is what we will start with.

    CITY TREATY <#> DEMAND <term>
    - Much like proposing, you can demand something.
    They are: Surrender, Ally, and Enemy.
    Again, I may add some more but for now this is all I'm adding.

    CITY TREATY <#> OFFER
    - This is how you offer the treaty. Note that you no longer specify the organization here.

    CITY TREATY <#> DISSOLVE
    - This command is how you void a treaty on friendly terms. Both parties must do this.
    I was thinking about having the ability for Guilds/Cities to be able to propose terms of treaty under research or support. Non-aggression is similar to ceasefire, so we can possibly just use that for Guilds if we want to/there is reason to.

    Research might be a term that could allow a pledging of gold that acts as research funds. Similarly, they can be demanded for using GUILD TREATY # DEMAND if the funds that are suggested are not sufficient.

    Support could be angled the same way, where an org can specify a (seasonal/annual/bi-annual) stipend of gold that they'll be automatically tithed to the other org, This only covers monetary support, though. The question is whether we can use this term without the option of monetary tithes, to cover usage of treaties for other kinds of support, like for information or otherwise.

    Where research and support treaties are concerned, I feel we should allow these kinds of treaties to be uni-laterally dissolved, if one organisation might feel the terms of the treaty aren't met. Still feeling the waters on this one.

    I wouldn't mind it if we get the ability to look at GUILD RELATIONS, because then it would enhance Guild to Guild RP a bit more, rather than have them serve as little more than glorified clans where people of a same mindset join and achieve something together! 
    Rhyot
  • RhyotRhyot BloodlochMember Posts: 636 ✭✭✭✭
    Elene said:


    Research might be a term that could allow a pledging of gold that acts as research funds. Similarly, they can be demanded for using GUILD TREATY # DEMAND if the funds that are suggested are not sufficient.

    Support could be angled the same way, where an org can specify a (seasonal/annual/bi-annual) stipend of gold that they'll be automatically tithed to the other org, This only covers monetary support, though.
    I can see this to be VERY negative and abused heavily.

    City: Guilds, you will pay 2 million gold per year.
    Guilds: Uh, no?
    City: Alright. Well unicorns you then. We're gonna lock down comms for your guild until you do.
    Guilds: Wtf.
    City: Pay the 2 million gold then. K thanks baiiiiiiiiiiiii.
    Guilds: We'll replace you.
    City: Ya'll are cute. You're welcome to try.


    Or let's go more extreme, because there ARE players like this and there are players who would act like this.

    City: Guilds 1 and 2 will pay 200k per year, but Guild 3 will pay 1 million gold.
    Guild 3: Wtf, why do we pay more?
    City: Because unicorns you that's why. Don't like it, replace us. HAHAHA but you can't. We're entrenched and people like us.
    Guild 3: We're not paying that, but we'll pay 200K like the other guilds.
    City: Nah buddy. You're gonna pay the 1 million.
    Guild 3: No.
    City: Cool. Then either gtfo or we'll set you to open pk within the city. You'll either pay or leave. Your choice.
    Guild 3: .....
    Guild 1 and 2: Well, sucks for you!!



    Trying to ask for financial "support" from your guilds would be a horrible move. The cities can already make treaties with guilds and other outside orgs (and often do). While this change it geared more towards conflict than intercity things, your idea is already somewhat implemented in the current CITY TREATY system.


  • EleneElene Member Posts: 308 ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 19
    I'm told that the offered terms for treaties are optional, so it is completely up to the orgs if they want to choose to offer the term of support/tithe in addition to a plain treaty.

    Having a tithing term would probably make it easier for a *guild/city who don't mind donating an amount of gold annually/seasonally to help another org to have it done automatically without forgetting. All for convenience's sake! They don't have to add a term if they don't want to.
Sign In or Register to comment.