Agema Publications

A forum for the disscussion of the Play by Mail games from Agema Publications


Treaties

Share
avatar
Deacon
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1382
Age : 54
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 38
Registration date : 2010-04-13

Treaties

Post by Deacon on Fri May 25, 2012 2:08 am

It appears there are differing understandings of how treaties created in game work. I'm asking from a rules basis understanding that all things might have their exceptions.

If a new player takes over a position, are they, in fact, not bound by existing treaties for their position? This seems quite illogical, but if so, something I'd really like to know since how you structure a treaty then needs to change at the very least.

J Flower
King
King

Number of posts : 703
Age : 46
Location : Paderborn, Germany
Reputation : 10
Registration date : 2012-02-16

Re: Treaties

Post by J Flower on Fri May 25, 2012 4:06 am

It has been a rule of thumb that new players are not bound by treaties signed by previous players, it used to be the case that the newspaper entry informing everyone that a new player had arrived also carried the message that all previous treaties were null & void. It is annoying to see all your diplomatic efforts destroyed all at once.

Guest
Guest

Re: Treaties

Post by Guest on Fri May 25, 2012 10:31 am

J Flower wrote:It used to be the case that the newspaper entry informing everyone that a new player had arrived also carried the message that all previous treaties were null & void.

Thanks - that's where it came from ... thought I was going mad trying to find it in the rules.

My other comments on treaties have been posted on the 'Game 9 Startup' thread which shows how the whole concept of treaties has changed over the last few years. I maintain that it doesn't matter what is in a treaty or who signs it if there are no effective penalties for breaking those treaties. This is not to undermine the discussion, far from it: I think it is essential that this aspect of the game is addressed fairly and consistently.

Penalties have to be harsh enough so their effect is not mitigated by other factors that influence honour. And if they are applied to a known formula by the GM, then there can be no accusations against him that he is being unfair. Players know the consequences of their actions and must accept them.
avatar
Jason
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1520
Age : 47
Location : Gourdon, Aberdeenshire
Reputation : 16
Registration date : 2008-08-27

Re: Treaties

Post by Jason on Fri May 25, 2012 10:45 am

My understanding was the same as other Jason and the Real King Louis.

I always saw it as one of those game mechanisms that was needed to keep the game admin under control. In the days before the games went increasingly electronic, it could be a bit of a nightmare for Richard to keep track of which treaties were current and have copies on hand to send to new players (which feels 'safer' than expecting other players to send copies to new players, always the chance of a dishonest player being sneaky).

Stuart Bailey
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1101
Age : 54
Location : Somewhere East of Bristol & West of Bath
Reputation : 31
Registration date : 2012-01-29

Re: Treaties

Post by Stuart Bailey on Sat May 26, 2012 3:46 pm

Couple of things about treaties which has always baffled me:

1) You sign a mutual defence treaty with a position which then goes NPC is the treaty defunct at that point or only when a new player takes over the position?

In the case of mutual defence treaties NPC never seem to do anything to protect me so am I expected to help protect them?

1) You sign a non aggression pact with a position you really dislike. Since the new player will not be bound by the treaty and can attack you is it Ok to get your pre-emptive strike in first.

Guest
Guest

Re: Treaties

Post by Guest on Sat May 26, 2012 3:58 pm

Stuart Bailey wrote:
1) You sign a mutual defence treaty with a position which then goes NPC is the treaty defunct at that point or only when a new player takes over the position? In the case of mutual defence treaties NPC never seem to do anything to protect me so am I expected to help protect them?


As things are at the moment, we simply don't know which is a problem! It seems to be that NPCs are often unaware of treaties the player had signed, but whether that means you will be penalised for your own treaty with them, I don't know. I suppose it depends on your own sense of honour. As France I found it was very simple: I would stand by treaties I had made. However, I usually had some flexibility as to the timing of support I would provide within the treaty itself.

Stuart Bailey wrote:
2) You sign a non aggression pact with a position you really dislike. Since the new player will not be bound by the treaty and can attack you is it OK to get your pre-emptive strike in first.

I think that is more straight forward - for as long as the position is NPC, I think you have to wait until the other side breaks the agreement, however obnoxious they may be. However, once the new player arrives the treaty would be void. That appears to give you the opportunity to attack. It might get complicated if the new player expected a treaty to be in force, but I don't see how that could be the case unless he had been briefed prior to taking on the position.

J Flower
King
King

Number of posts : 703
Age : 46
Location : Paderborn, Germany
Reputation : 10
Registration date : 2012-02-16

Re: Treaties

Post by J Flower on Tue May 29, 2012 9:56 am

I've had a frustrating time in Games because having invested a lot of time & energy into diplomatic moves with other players. Agreeing treaties, arranging marriages etc. Then player drops for whatever reason. a new player comes in and in the first turn attacks my position. without head of treaties or indeed any information of what has been happening between his position & my own.

If that player had received a list of treaties with his start up, then ok, he may still have attacked , but if he knew his posittion would suffer in the honour stakes because of his actions then he may have at least have had second thoughts.

In the Last Argument of Kings Game ( anyone remember that one) there was a list published once a year. With a side note as to how long the treaty was valid.

You could put treaties down as Trade, non-aggression, defensive, or offensive.

As to NPCs I can understand that Agema may be unaware of the various treaties signed with them. However I sometimes think that some mutually supporting positions like the HRR should maybe more pro-active in there defence of one another against either internal or external aggression. It seems most members simply sit on the side lines.
avatar
Deacon
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1382
Age : 54
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 38
Registration date : 2010-04-13

Re: Treaties

Post by Deacon on Tue May 29, 2012 3:59 pm

That is sort of my point. If this is a current rule, I had no idea, will be quite annoyed if it is as I've wasted time negotiating in good faith with NPCs.

If Glory is to be real, then there needs to be no difference between PC and NPC positions in this matter, and a change in position should not obviate previous treaties.

It may put more work on the GM, but I think the alternate is a damaged game.

Guest
Guest

Re: Treaties

Post by Guest on Tue May 29, 2012 7:25 pm

I like the idea of a list of active treaties being published once a year. It would probably take a while to set up, but once the list is compiled, maintaining it shouldn't be that onorous.

If I've understood Deacon's point, it is perfectly reasonable to expect NPC positions to be played to some extent which by implication means they should be subject to the same conditions as players: they should be aware of treaties they have signed and should abide by them. I don't remember the last time this happened. NPCs just don't seem to declare war if they have a defensive alliance, or take part in diplomacy. It does produce too many anomalies, particularly if the position has been inactive for some time. NPCs need not act like this, but I think it comes down to GM time (see my latest post on G9 startup).

Perhaps there can be a compromise semi-active stance, but if the GM doesn't have the time to play every position, then his choice appears to be between processing orders for players (and getting paid for those) or disappointing players and using that time to bring NPC positions back to life. What choice does he have?

Sponsored content

Re: Treaties

Post by Sponsored content


    Current date/time is Tue Aug 22, 2017 2:47 am