Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Help! Glory penalty for violating treaties?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition >> Help! Glory penalty for violating treaties? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Help! Glory penalty for violating treaties? - 9/18/2010 3:28:14 PM   
Marshal Villars


Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline 		Help!

If we multiply the glory losses for violating a treaty by 2.5 what they currently are, is this enough?

Should the cost be on a per treaty term basis? Or should they be for a whole treaty? For instance, 80 glory for violating a treaty -- no matter how many terms it has???

Want your input!
Post #: 1
RE: Help! Glory penalty for violating treaties? - 9/18/2010 8:55:26 PM   
Kingmaker

 

Posts: 1678
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline 		HiHi

In a period were "Honour" was still an ingrained part of the Culture for both Nations & individuals I feel it should be the breach of the concept rather than a sliding scale of 'Wrongdoing'.

+ as the games AI seems to have difficulty handling complex instructions, it may be an idean NOT to add to it's computational workload.

All the Best
Peter

(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 2
RE: Help! Glory penalty for violating treaties? - 9/18/2010 9:15:55 PM   
Marshal Villars


Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline 		So, a fixed value Kingmaker? If so, what value? 80?

Or perhaps 40 points or 1/5 of your glory, whichever is greater?

< Message edited by Marshal Villars -- 9/18/2010 9:17:23 PM >

(in reply to Kingmaker)
Post #: 3
RE: Help! Glory penalty for violating treaties? - 9/19/2010 8:35:24 AM   
Mus

 

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline 		Violating different clauses should have different costs.

Examples of violated clauses that should have a per turn cost that is rather small:

Inability to declare war under the clause of a declare on enemies of x clause.
Violating an agreement not to form an alliance with x clause.
Not respecting neutrality of a minor.

Examples of violated clauses that should have a one time cost that is heavy:

Cancelation of an enforced peace, enforced alliance, or royal marriage, weighted in that order.

< Message edited by Mus -- 9/19/2010 8:40:47 AM >

_____________________________

Mindset, Tactics, Skill, Equipment
Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas

(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 4
RE: Help! Glory penalty for violating treaties? - 9/19/2010 11:19:43 AM   
Marshal Villars


Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline 		@Mus: Would love to do something like this, but simplicity is key because I don't want to weigh Eric down with too much work. However, anything is possible if it makes sense and really is critical to the gaming experience.

Based on my reading the "40 points or 1/5 of your glory, whichever is greater" thing doesn't sound too far off.

I will see if I can talk to Eric about assigning different values to different clauses in the next week. But that makes it seem to me that treaties with many clauses will be more heavily weighted than single clause treaties...and that just doesn't seem like the way things worked to me.

On another note: I can promise everyone here that Eric and I have had almost 10 hours worth of meetings dealing with these issues in the last 2 weeks. Of course I can't promise when any patch will be out. I do know we both want one out and I have already expended a serious amount of effort on this task under Eric's direction.

< Message edited by Marshal Villars -- 9/19/2010 11:53:42 AM >

(in reply to Mus)
Post #: 5
RE: Help! Glory penalty for violating treaties? - 9/19/2010 11:58:27 AM   
Marshal Villars


Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline 		Actually, given two choices:

a) 40 points or 1/5 of your glory, whichever is greater".

and

b) X points per treaty term with some adjustments of X depending on which term

that 1 seems more realistic and lets fewer things fall through the cracks as being "unrealistic". I am not saying either system is unrealistic or realistic. I am just saying in 100 cases that "a" will have fewer problems based on my understanding and reading. For instance, what if the royal wedding is between two other countries and you decide to cancel? Do you want it to affect you more? And... does a treaty with 20 clauses really have 20 times the effect if you cancel it as one with two or three delivered to the same fanfare? I don't think so. I think that if one HAS to choose between both models that "a" is the better choice. Of course, one could also take the average between the two methods. Or even some sort of weighted average. But at the moment, lets just consider the two models, "a" and "b".

What I would like to know from you ALL is IF the "40 points or 1/5 of your glory" seems like it is appropriate should we go with option "a"!?!?

Thanks

< Message edited by Marshal Villars -- 9/19/2010 12:31:16 PM >

(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 6
RE: Help! Glory penalty for violating treaties? - 9/19/2010 1:27:14 PM   
Marshal Villars


Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline 		One player is recommending to me that the penalty be pro-rated depending on how many years the longest running term has left to go. So, if the longest running term has four years, and it is cancelled by someone in the last year, then it would cost them 10 glory points.

(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 7
RE: Help! Glory penalty for violating treaties? - 9/19/2010 2:26:16 PM   
evwalt

 

Posts: 644
Joined: 11/14/2007
Status: offline 		First, I think 1/5 of glory is WAY to much.  Towards the end of the game, you could be talking about over 1000 (or more) glory!  I would think a fixed number would be better.  Say -100 glory for violation of a public treaty; -50 for violation of a secret treaty. 

I DON'T think that the violation should be pro-rated.  As Kingmaker said, this was a time of honor and I don't think "well, it was almost expired" would really work.



_____________________________

Russia in "Going Again II"
France in "Quest for Glory"
Prussia in "Invitational"

(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 8
RE: Help! Glory penalty for violating treaties? - 9/19/2010 3:19:35 PM   
terje439


Posts: 6813
Joined: 3/28/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mus

Inability to declare war under the clause of a declare on enemies of x clause.


Not sure I agree with this one tbh.
Well atleast not if I read it right.
Example;
1. I have a non agression pact with Nation A
2. I have a declare war on enemies of Nation B pact
3. Nation A goes to war with Nation B.

If I read you right Mus, this means I should suffer a glory loss. That does not seem right to me as those treaties suggests to me that I will go to war with anyone Nation B is at war with except Nation A, and that this would be something agreed upon when the treaties were signed.

Terje

_____________________________

"Hun skal torpederes!" - Birger Eriksen

("She is to be torpedoed!")

(in reply to Mus)
Post #: 9
RE: Help! Glory penalty for violating treaties? - 9/19/2010 4:02:11 PM   
evwalt

 

Posts: 644
Joined: 11/14/2007
Status: offline 		Have to disagree with terje here.  I think that by making a "pledge of defense" is just that, that you will fight any country that attacks the one you are pledged to defend.  If you want to limit who you DoW, you don't need to make pledges of defense.

_____________________________

Russia in "Going Again II"
France in "Quest for Glory"
Prussia in "Invitational"

(in reply to terje439)
Post #: 10
RE: Help! Glory penalty for violating treaties? - 9/19/2010 6:51:40 PM   
Kingmaker

 

Posts: 1678
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline 		HiHi

As suggested before the way round this is surely to make 'Pact of Defence' Treaties Nation specific, rather than the current Catch all.

All the Best
Peter

(in reply to evwalt)
Post #: 11
RE: Help! Glory penalty for violating treaties? - 9/19/2010 7:17:21 PM   
Marshal Villars


Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline 		Well, I am curious if a treaty is a treaty, I am talking about having the same penalty applied when a player cancels it whether it is a "Pact of Defence" or a "Non-Aggression Pact", or a "Pledge to Liberate", or a combination of all three with six different powers. If you click on cancel, you get the penalty. However, for COGEE, I see Mus's point: that applying a 1/5 penalty late in the game is a bit much perhaps.

(in reply to Kingmaker)
Post #: 12
RE: Help! Glory penalty for violating treaties? - 9/19/2010 8:38:21 PM   
evwalt

 

Posts: 644
Joined: 11/14/2007
Status: offline 		I like Kingmaker's idea of a "Pledge of Defense" for specific countries only.

I agree that the glory negative should be the same for breaking any treaty.  I believe that this is listed in the problems thread but only the country BREAKING the treaty should get the glory loss.  I believe all powers in a treaty get the loss now.

_____________________________

Russia in "Going Again II"
France in "Quest for Glory"
Prussia in "Invitational"

(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 13
RE: Help! Glory penalty for violating treaties? - 9/20/2010 1:01:46 AM   
Mus

 

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: evwalt

Have to disagree with terje here.  I think that by making a "pledge of defense" is just that, that you will fight any country that attacks the one you are pledged to defend.  If you want to limit who you DoW, you don't need to make pledges of defense.


I agree. Every game I get involved with multiparty negotiations with players throwing around the ideal of mutual defense clauses, which I never agree to sign, invariably some of them do despite my warning, and then later in the game end up kicking themselves when they end up at war with people they didn't want to end up at war with.

If you don't want to end up in wars you don't want to fight, don't pledge to fight enemies that can be created on somebody else's whim.

< Message edited by Mus -- 9/20/2010 1:05:55 AM >

_____________________________

Mindset, Tactics, Skill, Equipment
Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas

(in reply to evwalt)
Post #: 14
RE: Help! Glory penalty for violating treaties? - 9/20/2010 1:05:20 AM   
Mus

 

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshal Villars

Actually, given two choices:

a) 40 points or 1/5 of your glory, whichever is greater".

and

b) X points per treaty term with some adjustments of X depending on which term



Originally the value was 40 glory lost, which was only excessive in the case of treaties that you were forced to violate by means of hardwired 18 month enforced peace terms in the event of two allies being split by gamey mechanics, such as the "can't declare war on X under the terms of treaty Y" scenario I already outlined. There was also a bug in the initial release that hit the wrong party with penalties.

All violations were then moved down to -4 glory in response to complaints (largely based off not understanding the diplomatic system and the bug mentioned above), which is absurdly low and was complained about from the start by many of us in the PBEM community as being too low and safely able to be ignored with impunity.

I like the idea of -40 (or more, but not fractional based under any circumstance) hits on the one time penalties, and something like -10 glory a turn on the open ended violations.

< Message edited by Mus -- 9/20/2010 11:30:43 PM >

_____________________________

Mindset, Tactics, Skill, Equipment
Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas

(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 15
RE: Help! Glory penalty for violating treaties? - 9/20/2010 1:10:12 AM   
Mus

 

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: evwalt

I like Kingmaker's idea of a "Pledge of Defense" for specific countries only.


I would rather have it be context specific and be, literally, a pledge of defense, not a pledge of offense as it can currently be now. That is, the treaty should only kick in when the party being pledged for is declared on by another nation, not when they declare.

_____________________________

Mindset, Tactics, Skill, Equipment
Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas

(in reply to evwalt)
Post #: 16
RE: Help! Glory penalty for violating treaties? - 9/20/2010 2:04:26 AM   
evwalt

 

Posts: 644
Joined: 11/14/2007
Status: offline 		Absolutely agree with Mus here.  Should be "pledge of DEFENSE" not pledge to support you whoever you fight, even if you are the aggressor

_____________________________

Russia in "Going Again II"
France in "Quest for Glory"
Prussia in "Invitational"

(in reply to Mus)
Post #: 17
RE: Help! Glory penalty for violating treaties? - 10/9/2010 8:32:39 AM   
Marshal Villars


Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline 		How about a treaty term like:

-"If X declares war on Y, then Z will declare war on X." I think that is pretty clear and controllable. Of course if X and Z are allies, this could make things a little complicated. I don't think you are normally allowed to DoW allies.

(in reply to evwalt)
Post #: 18
RE: Help! Glory penalty for violating treaties? - 10/10/2010 9:43:14 AM   
terje439


Posts: 6813
Joined: 3/28/2004
Status: offline 		Sounds good to me, it is clear and easy to understand and use.

Terje

_____________________________

"Hun skal torpederes!" - Birger Eriksen

("She is to be torpedoed!")

(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 19
RE: Help! Glory penalty for violating treaties? - 10/10/2010 9:55:03 PM   
06 Maestro


Posts: 3989
Joined: 10/12/2005
From: Nevada, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshal Villars

How about a treaty term like:

-"If X declares war on Y, then Z will declare war on X." I think that is pretty clear and controllable. Of course if X and Z are allies, this could make things a little complicated. I don't think you are normally allowed to DoW allies.


I like that. If it does come to pass that you must dow it is not much different than the current situation. However, it does give you more control in dealing with "allies". It would be an improvement.

_____________________________

Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.

Thomas Jefferson


(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 20
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition >> Help! Glory penalty for violating treaties? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.063