Trade option: Peace Period

  • I think it would be cool to add another trade option, which would be peace period. It would work exactly the same as the map feature, where people wouldn't be able to attack each other for the specified period of time. The main reason why I'd like to see this feature is to add some more weight to any peace deals, because right now people aren't incentivized to make them, which loses out on the diplomatic aspect of the game in my opinion.

    I know backstabbing is something players should be aware of, and there is the popularity penalty for declaring too many wars, but honestly, trade embargoes from small nations are hardly a setback, even declarations of war from the AI are nothing serious, unless maybe in the earliest stages of the game.

    The time I see this feature useful would be in the early-to-mid game, where players can broker a peace deal in exchange for provinces/resources, which would have to be enforced. As for why someone would want to make a peace deal instead of fighting it out to the end, in the cases where there can't be a clear winner unless both sides exhaust each other's armies completely. I believe roleplaying games would also see some benefit, too, although people there tend to respect peace deals more than in normal games.

  • I don't think it causes a loss of diplomacy. I think it enhances it.

    What you're asking for is a mechanic that removes the ability to be directly involved in diplomacy for a time.

    If I am at war with you and I have an involved ally that you know about. If I agree to a ceasefire under your suggestion, you can just use it to attack my ally, make huge gains, and I am prevented by the game mechanics from assisting my ally despite me having a perfectly reasonable casus belli.

    I think it best the players hold responsibility for diplomacy, not mechanics.

  • This can still be done in the current game. I can offer someone 100k cash in exchange for peace, lets say 5 days of peace. The only thing that cannot be enforced is whether I actually don't attack you for 5 days.

    In real life should two nations agree to something like this, there is nothing mechanically preventing one to go and attack the other 3 days later. Yes the world would likely frown upon this action, but that can occur in game. If players sign a peace like this. I would encourage you to post it in the WH (world herald / newspaper). So that should someone betray the agreement the world can see they have done so.

    But should a player attack after the 3 days that is up to them. Forcing players to not be able to act like one does in real life I wouldn't support. This is a game of diplomacy, blindly trusting someone won't betray their word is foolish imo.

    When Hitler said he would stop at the Sudetenland and then ate up the rest of Czechoslovakia, there was nothing preventing him from doing that. Sure it was an ass move, but like in-game, players can do that.

  • Backstabbing is an opportunistic strategy here in S1914, and within this community such players reputation is quickly known to the 'veteran and regulars' of the 100 and 500 player maps, this violation of agreements might go un-noticed on smaller maps...

    I would suggest players make deals with players they know and have seen play in other maps, making deals with unknown players should always be done with caution as the 'backstabbers' are predators that prey upon the weak, later the weak shout about betrayal, but most the time they would have been harvested like sheep with 2 weeks advance warning that they will be attacked ;)

  • I often make deals with unknown players (mostly Coalitions) and have only been stabbed once in all my games.

    I've always made the deals VERY clear before agreeing to them and getting written agreement from the other party or parties. The other thing that I do is to deliberately leave myself open early on in the agreement, when I know I can quickly plug the hole again if stabbed. If I see that the other player isn't doing the same and is building up on our borders, then I rectify the situation.

    Having said that, I prefer to play in an Alliance vs Alliance map now most of the time, as the rules of engagement are very clear.