New Treaty: Cease-fire

[Skulky]

I think this is definitly a possibility in the near future, just another option, seems pretty straightforward for non-AI. Just UI and some hardcode for the different exchanges. But im not a programmer/game designer. BTW THIS IS A GREAT IDEA!

[Stone Mill]

Lots of great ideas here. I hope these ideas are considered for SE5.

Another position that seems obvious to me is thus:

No Treaty: Ships/units may engage in space combat, but planets are not attacked.

War: Required for attacking planets.

This should be relatively easy to implement. I expect that some folks may argue otherwise, but in my opinion, exterminating planets is an act of WAR, plain and simple. If you wish to frag or invade a planet and capture/wipe out all life, you should have the cahonas to declare war in order to do it.

This change would create a logical level of combat (No-Treaty) for "actions short of war."

[geoschmo]

Stonemill,

It's not a bad idea, but it strikes me an an uneccesary complication for very little in return. The same can be accomplished now by simply not moving your ships into a sector with a planet of a race you don't have a treaty with. With your two level treaty you would in effect be blockading the planet, which is pretty much an act of war in itself.

I would like to see some refinements to the ship strategies though. For one it would be nice to be able to set the ship strategy for individual ships, rather than only for all ships. And "Dont' get hurt" is a little weak. A better stategy option would be "defensive posture" or something like that. Where your ship would not attack another ship or planet unless it made hostile moves towards it. Rather than run for the corner it would move forward or backwards in a logical tactical manner, but only in a limited amount of space on the caombat map. It's not really a treaty, but this would help prevent the planet glassing you talked about.

Geoschmo

[ October 21, 2002, 15:46: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[Stone Mill]

Hi Geo-

I really disagree. The change does have many plability payoffs. It forces empires who are engaging in warlike activities to suffer from the long term population disgruntlement (which is currently only attached to the state of war) IIRC.

This will absolutely allow for effective use of blockades and make it a favorable tactic.

Blockading is an action short of war. It is not war. There are many many historical examples to demonstrate that blockading is a tactic used outside of the scope of war: Cuban Missile Crisis, Desert Storm/Iraq actions, and all sort of 1700-1900 naval operations.

Admittedly, it often leads to war... but it is a tactic most often used outside of war... used to coerce, weaken, or strongarm an enemy without wiping them out.

In SEIV, I never intentionally blockade. By the time I can clear 100+ mines, I'm either taking the planet or wiping them out.

[tesco samoa]

Sorry to change topic

I would like treaties to be private or public.

Ie on the treaty grid players see empire a and b have a non-agression public treaty and in private they have a military alliance...

Back to topic