Shattered Kingdoms

Shamelessly lifted from archaicsmurf's post in another thread. This is a great idea for a fourth option for diplomacy.

Sour greps reporting in.

I find diplomacy is largely a joke because of the permanent and unresolvable conflicts at the heart of the game's story. Taslamar and the Empire can never, will never, and should never be friends because they represent different alignments. A diplomatic status can be washed away like tears in rain, and for good reason. So many things in SK are called static that diplomatic relations being so wouldn't be too much of a stretch, would it? Inner-alignment conflict is cursed by immortals on the light side, so even that much really isn't valid for every faction.

There's nothing to capitulate for a status of surrender to be meaningful in a story sense. It would be a joke, like the rest of tribunal politics.

If we were to do some fancy, fancy footwork like "occupation" being coded through room phases and such, maybe we'd get somewhere interesting, but... don't try to make the code do what the players aren't.

I would rather see something similar to what they use in PS2. Regions that can be taken over for resources for that faction. Given that tradeskills are implemented this would dovetail in very nicely while creating adversity and sensible PK opportunities that aren't just ambush ganks. How often a place can be taken over and what they give, should vary. In how it relates to the suggestion, then Taslamar can surrender control of a region to the North, for example, in trade for peace. However short lived it usually is This would also help possibly create some diplomatic challenges for what is normally aligned nations as some nations flounder due to war, will want to get something to help their nation. Which could lead to territorial wars even between those 'normally' aligned nations.

I like that idea.

Sounds like it would increase the gap between the winning and losing side rather than bring it closer. I'm not saying the winners shouldn't have rewards, but should they have all the cards?

The problem with surrender status is it would have to be policed. The side accepting the surrender has to accept terms other than deletion. There would have to be conditions set in place so you're not just stuck in surrender limbo or surrender/reject/surrender/reject.

Tribunal surrender would mean tribunal wiping. "Let a more capable man take the job," and we've all seen how that works out.

Interesting thought.

tribunal diplomacy <group> surrender [conditions]
tribunal dieplomacy <group> surrender accept|decline

General term option(s) could be considered too when accepting surrender if conditioned when the opponent is offering

It can be taken in the context of 'we surrender and throwing this offer up' or 'we will allow you to surrender under these terms' A surrender would likely cost the kingdom that surrendered more in upkeep (to the one surrendered to, than a truce). Would encourage a surrendered side to work their way back up to a truce. It still should be economically better than being at war.

Conditions, which could be piped| (or some other delimiter) together
offer
restitution <number of coppers>
parole all
parole leaders
pardon all
pardon leaders
unbanish all
unbanish leaders
banish all (will only work if regular conditions for banishment are met)
banish all leaders (will only work if regular conditions for banishment are met)

Example 1: Leader throwing towel in to other faction (if you are throwing in the towel, you offer the surrender to start)
tribunal diplomacy surrender offer restitution 30000 | pardon all | unbanish all leaders
Other group can accept or decline. If accepting, losing group would lose coin,
pardon everyone in the winning faction, and unbanish all the leaders of the winning faction

Example 2: Leader demanding other faction to just surrender already
tribunal diplomacy surrender restitution 40000|banish all
Other group can accept or decline. If it is accepted, the group initiating gets the coins, and the group who surrendered has all members banished that were qualified to be banished regardless of if they were or not yet banished.

Notes with restitution: Can't offer money you don't have in the bank, can't accept to give restitution with coin not in the bank.

It's clunky, but it's just my brainstorm to be worked wtih:

Advantages - it would be another rank in the diplomacy ranks, with upkeep between war and truce, it would automate some of the legalities of things, and yet leave much as flexible as ever. Bank transfers are actually possible this way and another reason to keep coin in the banks potentialy.

Disadvantages - surrenders may be declined more often than not in the same way truces currently are. A lot of code, and a lot of other things to be working on right now for the community.

My final assessment: surrender is an interesting idea which should be investigated further down the line. Not high on priority list.

Pook sometimes reminds me of Mordin Solus.