Treaty or Pact Suggestion

[Most Lee Harmless]

The problem doesnt go away : My guild may make a peace pact with another guild : then my nation gets involved in a fracas over say, a port control issue with another nation, and war breaks out : Now, which takes precedence ? My nation needs to attack the other nations members, they need to attack mine : but if we are both in guilds with peace treaties between them : we can not do that. Again, it dont work well the other way around either : my guild declares war on another guild : but we both have fellow citizens of the same nations : now, some may be happy to hit fellow citizens, others may feel it is disloyal : so, which takes precedence? Nation or guild? That's the issue for me, and until it is resolved, no pact, whether between guilds or nations, will be worth the paper its written on : No nation can enforce its will upon its citizens to observe any pact, that's another issue as long as nations have no power to control applications to join it, or to remove problem citizens. Neither can a guild enforce it's own pacts if its members observe their national loyalties first ; at least they can boot the problems though.

[Alkie]

ahh i see it now that you put it that way. whilst we can pretty much leave this thread be for now, as i can actually see it being disapproved hahah

[fullfathomfive]

it would say for example: (EIC) has a peace treaty with (Spanish Ayes) 48 days until pact expires.
(EIC) has a trade pact with (ZomB) 26 days until pact expires

I have yet to understand why the Nations/Guild problem has not been resolved or how in anyway it is a positive aspect of the game. In your example above "(EIC) guild has a peace treaty with (Spanish Ayes) guild". However, England King, who is not a member of EIC, has declared war on Spain, which houses the Spanish Ayes guild. The two Kings represent Nations and control ports and may or may not have any association with either of the guilds. Therefore the peace treaty is worthless and/or creates problems for the King who is trying his best to protect his ports/ports along with his national assets.

How can the game place a player (King) in a position such as this and believe it is acceptable? His loyalty is to the Nation he governs. By the same token a King of one of the nations may be a member of another guild that has adversarial positions with a guild within his own nation. Again, how can the game place a player in such a position and deem it acceptable?

Until this major problem is addressed and resolved, any pact/trade agreements can essentially be put on "future additions".

[Francois le Clerc]

it would say for example: (EIC) has a peace treaty with (Spanish Ayes) 48 days until pact expires.
(EIC) has a trade pact with (ZomB) 26 days until pact expires

I have yet to understand why the Nations/Guild problem has not been resolved or how in anyway it is a positive aspect of the game. In your example above "(EIC) guild has a peace treaty with (Spanish Ayes) guild". However, England King, who is not a member of EIC, has declared war on Spain, which houses the Spanish Ayes guild. The two Kings represent Nations and control ports and may or may not have any association with either of the guilds. Therefore the peace treaty is worthless and/or creates problems for the King who is trying his best to protect his ports/ports along with his national assets.

How can the game place a player (King) in a position such as this and believe it is acceptable? His loyalty is to the Nation he governs. By the same token a King of one of the nations may be a member of another guild that has adversarial positions with a guild within his own nation. Again, how can the game place a player in such a position and deem it acceptable?

Until this major problem is addressed and resolved, any pact/trade agreements can essentially be put on "future additions".

well said mate...Me gusta it

[DezNutz]

As Nation Diplomacy has been implemented, this should be moved to the discussion archive.

Agreed - Skyhawk

agree here - clock

[Banger]

Agree