Empires X - Erflia - COMPLETED - OOC discussion

Your new games, homebrews, mods and ideas. Forum games go here.

Re: Empires X - Erflia - Playing

Postby Silversought » Tue Mar 18, 2014 1:19 pm

Oh how exciting, I was right! ;D

Also, CroverusRaven has an amazing capital, I suggest you folks get your envoys on their feet and here!
Silversought
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 10:17 pm

Re: Empires X - Erflia - Playing

Postby LTDave » Tue Mar 18, 2014 9:58 pm

A couple of folks have started interacting, and I get copied in on some of the conversations, and there's a whole lot of "50 turn treaties" and "10,000 Schmucker" penalty clauses being bandied about.

I'm all for that - except that "50 turns" is a bit long for a game that's only 7 turns old.

I'm going to have to come up with some better rules for these sorts of things, since otherwise I'm going to end up being a lawyer and judge trying to trawl through alliances and deciding if someone is in breach of contract.

I'm going to rule that for any Schmucker penalty to be enforced, the contract will have to be a public treaty, made on the forum.

My draft ideas for treaties are as follows:

Non-Agression Pact - 1000 Schmucker Penalty
Neither side to attack the other's units

Territory Pact - 2000 Schmucker Penalty
Neither side to move into very clearly specified territory

Alliance - 3000 Schmucker Penalty
Non-Aggression and Both sides share a turn, units can stack together, etc.

Rather than have time limits on treaties, a treaty is in effect until broken. You can break treaty by violating the terms and paying the penalty, OR by giving a full turn's warning that you are going to break the treaty, with no penalty. Such warning will have to be made via the forum AND in the player's orders.

Thoughts, comments?
User avatar
LTDave
 
Posts: 2332
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 7:53 pm

Re: Empires X - Erflia - Playing

Postby GWvsJohn » Tue Mar 18, 2014 10:00 pm

Would these changes retconjure any existing treaties?
GWvsJohn
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:52 pm

Re: Empires X - Erflia - Playing

Postby LTDave » Tue Mar 18, 2014 10:03 pm

They would have to. You are welcome to create your own treaties and make them as complicated as you desire, but I will not be enforcing them. It will be a matter of honour between players to pay the appropriate penalty if you break the terms of the private treaties as you understand them.
User avatar
LTDave
 
Posts: 2332
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 7:53 pm

Re: Empires X - Erflia - Playing

Postby Silversought » Wed Mar 19, 2014 12:38 am

I think this treaty system is pretty sound, Dave. I'm not 100% on "must be a public treaty" though. While it does make it harsh on a player who breaks a treaty, it pushes negotiators into the light. While my Ruler loves transparency, I kind of enjoy knife-in-the-dark politics.

Rules question: With the advent of "Public Forum Treaty" does this mean that a treaty can be negotiated and signed entirely via Book of the Thread, with no requirement for face-to-face meeting?
Silversought
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 10:17 pm

Re: Empires X - Erflia - Playing

Postby GWvsJohn » Wed Mar 19, 2014 12:41 am

Silversought wrote:I think this treaty system is pretty sound, Dave. I'm not 100% on "must be a public treaty" though. While it does make it harsh on a player who breaks a treaty, it pushes negotiators into the light. While my Ruler loves transparency, I kind of enjoy knife-in-the-dark politics.

Rules question: With the advent of "Public Forum Treaty" does this mean that a treaty can be negotiated and signed entirely via Book of the Thread, with no requirement for face-to-face meeting?


I got the impression that the public treaty was only of we want Dave to enforce the treaty.
GWvsJohn
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:52 pm

Re: Empires X - Erflia - Playing

Postby Silversought » Wed Mar 19, 2014 12:58 am

GWvsJohn wrote:
Silversought wrote:I think this treaty system is pretty sound, Dave. I'm not 100% on "must be a public treaty" though. While it does make it harsh on a player who breaks a treaty, it pushes negotiators into the light. While my Ruler loves transparency, I kind of enjoy knife-in-the-dark politics.

Rules question: With the advent of "Public Forum Treaty" does this mean that a treaty can be negotiated and signed entirely via Book of the Thread, with no requirement for face-to-face meeting?


I got the impression that the public treaty was only of we want Dave to enforce the treaty.


I did not question that. The first point pertained to the inability to have the sample treaties enforced if you don't want to make it public. It's not a big deal, but I figure it's still pretty convenient if both parties pledge the sample treaty in a PM to both Dave & the other party.

The second point was asking if we could negotiate and sign the public treaties entirely via Book of the Thread (despite the security nightmare that represents), rather than leadership communication prior to signing the treaty.
Silversought
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 10:17 pm

Re: Empires X - Erflia - Playing

Postby LTDave » Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:06 am

Silversought wrote:
GWvsJohn wrote:
Silversought wrote:I think this treaty system is pretty sound, Dave. I'm not 100% on "must be a public treaty" though. While it does make it harsh on a player who breaks a treaty, it pushes negotiators into the light. While my Ruler loves transparency, I kind of enjoy knife-in-the-dark politics.

Rules question: With the advent of "Public Forum Treaty" does this mean that a treaty can be negotiated and signed entirely via Book of the Thread, with no requirement for face-to-face meeting?


I got the impression that the public treaty was only of we want Dave to enforce the treaty.


I did not question that. The first point pertained to the inability to have the sample treaties enforced if you don't want to make it public. It's not a big deal, but I figure it's still pretty convenient if both parties pledge the sample treaty in a PM to both Dave & the other party.

The second point was asking if we could negotiate and sign the public treaties entirely via Book of the Thread (despite the security nightmare that represents), rather than leadership communication prior to signing the treaty.



This is all draft at the moment. I don't suppose the treaties have to be public via the forum.
And of course you can negotiate anything you like via the book - you'll just have everyone else watching.
User avatar
LTDave
 
Posts: 2332
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 7:53 pm

Re: Empires X - Erflia - Playing

Postby GJC » Wed Mar 19, 2014 7:01 am

I'd be alright with formalizing treaties in a few generic forms, even making them public. But I feel like the smucker penalties you suggested are a bit low. If a treaty is to provide safety, it seems that the penalties should be higher than one or two turns' city income, so that it can't easily be paid.
GJC
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 9:25 am

Re: Empires X - Erflia - Playing

Postby Deo » Wed Mar 19, 2014 10:23 am

I would imagine that schmucker would be negotiable, though I think some sort of max limit might be nice.

(We will only agree to this treaty if you put a million Schmucker penalty on it, if you do not agree then you were not committed to it!).

Plus if the side finds a way to hurt you, without breaking the conditions, then it would put you in a big bind.

Might be hard to figure a decent figure for a limit though.
User avatar
Deo
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:40 pm

Re: Empires X - Erflia - Playing

Postby HerbieRai » Wed Mar 19, 2014 11:39 am

It depends on if Dave wants this to be a war heavy game. In general I think alliances should be public because although being part of an alliance can be a detterant to war; not knowing if your target has 5 allies or none is an even greater one.

I don't think Dave can enforce the treaties unless specifies the treaties we can make (like he did above).

edit for some grammer mistakes. I'm sure there are more
Last edited by HerbieRai on Wed Mar 19, 2014 12:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
HerbieRai
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:58 pm

Re: Empires X - Erflia - Playing

Postby GJC » Wed Mar 19, 2014 12:11 pm

I'm just spitballing here, but maybe an upper limit of 5000 per city of the larger side? That would allow it to scale with empire size. A 10.000 smucker limit is huge for a 2-city side, but much smaller for one with 5 or 6 cities.

And I agree with Herbie re: public alliances.
GJC
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 9:25 am

Re: Empires X - Erflia - Playing

Postby Silversought » Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:27 pm

HerbieRai wrote:It depends on if Dave wants this to be a war heavy game. In general I think alliances should be public because although being part of an alliance can be a detterant to war; not knowing if your target has 5 allies or none is an even greater one.

I don't think Dave can enforce the treaties unless specifies the treaties we can make (like he did above).

edit for some grammer mistakes. I'm sure there are more


Agreed, that would make it pretty frustrating for him, since individually designed treaties can be crazy. xD

Anyhow, maybe the schmucker penalty could be fixed to your city income. Break a non-aggression pact, and you lose schmuckers = city income for one turn. Territory pact and you lose schmuckers = total city income for two turns. Alliance and you lose total city income for three turns. It could be either "lose instantly" or "Your cities do not generate income for X turns".

It'd be guaranteed to hurt anybody, scaling happily with cities possessed and treaty level.

I would love it if the official treaties could be done inconspicuously, but I see HerbieRai's point.
Silversought
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 10:17 pm

Re: Empires X - Erflia - Playing

Postby HerbieRai » Wed Mar 19, 2014 3:14 pm

There is a difference between treaties and alliances. A non agression or territory treaty could be secret, since the two sides involved wouldn't have any change to their gameplay. It's alliances that cause differences in the game since alliances can cause a problem with turn orders. If A and B are allied with C, but not allied with eachother what happens? Do they share a turn? Can A wait till B moves units, then in the same turn move their units into unoccupied locations to take over thier weakpoints? If A and B do not know they are secretly allied together and they try to attack eachother what happens? No one would be breaking their alliance yet someone would have to.

While treaties details can be secret, and non alliance treaties as well, I think if two or more sides are in an alliance the others need to know.
HerbieRai
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:58 pm

Re: Empires X - Erflia - Playing

Postby GJC » Wed Mar 19, 2014 8:53 pm

[book]
Jimmeny,

We have dispatched a warlord to your given coordinates. We hope he finds his way safely, and are eager to participate in the conference.

Thank you in advance for hosting us.

Regards,
Jadis Tassadar
[/book]
GJC
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 9:25 am

Re: Empires X - Erflia - Playing

Postby CroverusRaven » Thu Mar 20, 2014 1:02 am

[book]
Jadis Tassadar,

We look forward to your warlord's arrival .We already have our first guest who arrived a bit early, but once all expected guest have arrived we will hold a grand show for all and then discussions can begin. While your warlords wait in the city they are free to explore, we have nothing to hide from our future allies. We also offer to cover the rations of any who stay in the capital while awaiting the show.

Humbly,
Jimmeny Henderson
[/book]
CroverusRaven
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 7:52 am

Re: Empires X - Erflia - Playing

Postby SeraphRedux » Thu Mar 20, 2014 4:24 pm

As for the turn issues, that depends on if the allies share turns while allied by default, or if that's a separate thing entirely, or nonexistent at all (since this is still in reform). I do agree that alliances should be public, and other treaties can be private or public. I also assume that non-aggression treaty makes units not auto-engage each other even while unled.
User avatar
SeraphRedux
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 5:17 am

Re: Empires X - Erflia - Playing

Postby LTDave » Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:24 am

Turn 7 has been processed.

Deo, HerbieRai, and Brimstone are now on turn 8.


Thanks for the feedback on the treaty ideas.


Here's the current thinking:

Non-Agression Pact - minimum 1000 Schmucker Penalty
Neither side to attack the other's units (if there is no Non-Agression Pact, the sides are assumed to be at war and will auto-engage)
May be PM'd, and confirmed with GM.

Territory Pact - minimum 2000 Schmucker Penalty
Non-Agression Pact AND Neither side to move into very clearly specified territory
May be PM'd, and confirmed with GM.

Alliance - minimum 3000 Schmucker Penalty
Non-Aggression Pact and Both sides share a turn, units can stack together, etc.
A Power may not be Allied to a Power that is allied to a non-allied power (ie, A and B are allies. Neither can Ally with C, unless both ally with C)
Must be declared publicly via the Forum "Book"


Rather than have time limits on treaties, a treaty is in effect until broken. You can break treaty by violating the terms and paying the penalty, OR by giving a full turn's warning that you are going to break the treaty, with no penalty. Such warning will have to be made via the forum AND in the player's orders.

The Maximum Schmucker Penalty on any Treaty may not exceed three times the smaller sides total per turn income.


Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions?
User avatar
LTDave
 
Posts: 2332
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 7:53 pm

Re: Empires X - Erflia - Playing

Postby Silversought » Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:33 am

Looks good to me. Clearly defined form, minimums, maximums, procedure. Whoo!~
Silversought
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 10:17 pm

Re: Empires X - Erflia - Playing

Postby LTDave » Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:37 am

[BOOK]

Hail Jimmeny of the Moppits.

We are the Grand Duchy. We have read of your Great Show, and are en-route to your Capital to witness the discussion and share our wisdom.

Our emissary, marked in Red, has already entered your territory. In order to prevent the needless effusion of blood, we ask that you agree to the standard Non-Aggression Pact between our peoples, at the standard penalty rate.

What do you say?

Best Regards,

Premier Sinkerwell
Image

[/BOOK]
User avatar
LTDave
 
Posts: 2332
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 7:53 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Your Games

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests