Nation Diplomacy: Pacts

[Kangaroo]

I read this example that I can set the fee I want to pay another nation for "port access", but not what they pay Spain to access ours. This is so clearly the reverse of logic that I feel I must be missing something? Your earlier outline and example clearly showed the reverse.

[Captain Jack]

So it is more like shopping for deals. Hostile nations or nations with no treaty cannot be set, can they?

Not possible. Who would grant special access to an enemy?

I read this example that I can set the fee I want to pay another nation for "port access", but not what they pay Spain to access ours. This is so clearly the reverse of logic that I feel I must be missing something? Your earlier outline and example clearly showed the reverse.

You got it wrong. You will not be able to set what fee you will pay another nation. The nation sets the price and the rest decide whether they will accept it.

The only difference in terms of resulting functionality in comparison to the initial idea is that we remove the per nation agreement and we make it per treaty type agreement.

We really can't find any other way that can work without a ton of bureaucracy actually so we are open to any different ideas that could solve this problem. We need a simplified version for what is already a very complicated feature as it regulates multiple deals between hundreds of nations and thousands of players on dozens of ports.

[Kangaroo]

So it is more like shopping for deals. Hostile nations or nations with no treaty cannot be set, can they?

Not possible. Who would grant special access to an enemy?

I read this example that I can set the fee I want to pay another nation for "port access", but not what they pay Spain to access ours. This is so clearly the reverse of logic that I feel I must be missing something? Your earlier outline and example clearly showed the reverse.

You got it wrong. You will not be able to set what fee you will pay another nation. The nation sets the price and the rest decide whether they will accept it.

The only difference in terms of resulting functionality in comparison to the initial idea is that we remove the per nation agreement and we make it per treaty type agreement.

We really can't find any other way that can work without a ton of bureaucracy actually so we are open to any different ideas that could solve this problem. We need a simplified version for what is already a very complicated feature as it regulates multiple deals between hundreds of nations and thousands of players on dozens of ports.

Apologies, one too many Hanoi beers, I missed this line "TK requires (ie)"

I agree simplicity is good and the selection strategy to accept or not via the map works for me also.
The other real change not noted is that neutral nations can access these rights at a stated cost but in the same way as those whom have signed a treaty, this weakens the reasoning behind treaties existing at least in this development stage?

[Sebena]

I would just like to say that nations should get better control over whom can join them. What if these pacts go active and player that is hostile twoards both nations and they don't want him there decides to join one or another and raise ranks and get benefits even though both nations don't want that player to join their ranks. Either make that switching nations with active coumcile and king requires application for citizenship or if they are listed as enemy of the crown they don't have any benefits from that nation

[Captain Jack]

For pacts, we are moving to new type of solution that will work through diplomacy.

Nation officials will set through one law whether they want to give out port perks to other nations, perks similar to the ones they enjoy.
For every perk they give out, they will be able to set a fee.
They will be doing this for every possible relationship in the law:
-No relationship
-Cease Fire
-Peace Treaty
-Alliance
(war is excluded)

Then, once the law is published, the rest of the nations will get to pick whether they want to activate such perks. Either through a law again or through the rightful king. The certain part is that the payment will be through treasury to treasury and that there will be max caps to what a nation can charge. Also, perks will be title based too, like it happens for the citizens of the same nation.

The plan above solves a lot of issues we had in the management part that prevented us from implementing them right away. We could use the same model for all types of pacts but it is evident that we will give priority to port perks.

The problematic parts that still need to be solved on paper, before we move to code are whether or not nations should be able to specify ports or not. At one hand, it sounds good for ports to be able to offer different ports for different prices but on another hand, this will create complexion for both the system and players. So most probably, ports selection will not be an option.

Another problematic part is the amount of power such pacts will give to existing nations. Such system could create monopolies which could result in seeing all the ports under one nation. It's really a difficult step forward.

[sXs]

For pacts, we are moving to new type of solution that will work through diplomacy.

Nation officials will set through one law whether they want to give out port perks to other nations, perks similar to the ones they enjoy.
For every perk they give out, they will be able to set a fee.
They will be doing this for every possible relationship in the law:
-No relationship
-Cease Fire
-Peace Treaty
-Alliance
(war is excluded)

Then, once the law is published, the rest of the nations will get to pick whether they want to activate such perks. Either through a law again or through the rightful king. The certain part is that the payment will be through treasury to treasury and that there will be max caps to what a nation can charge. Also, perks will be title based too, like it happens for the citizens of the same nation.

The plan above solves a lot of issues we had in the management part that prevented us from implementing them right away. We could use the same model for all types of pacts but it is evident that we will give priority to port perks.

The problematic parts that still need to be solved on paper, before we move to code are whether or not nations should be able to specify ports or not. At one hand, it sounds good for ports to be able to offer different ports for different prices but on another hand, this will create complexion for both the system and players. So most probably, ports selection will not be an option.

Another problematic part is the amount of power such pacts will give to existing nations. Such system could create monopolies which could result in seeing all the ports under one nation. It's really a difficult step forward.

Although this is not a real concern right now, I have one suggestion.

If peace treaty is enacted between two nations, there should be a default hostility penalty set. Right now, You can set alliance or peace treaty with no penalty if nation does not have hostility laws enacted. This renders the treaty useless as a tool of diplomacy.

Something maybe to address after plantation, flagships...... but before blockades i would think.