Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: September 2003:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#6269) [proposal] Surrender
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#6269) [proposal] Surrender

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: per@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#6269) [proposal] Surrender
From: "James Christensen" <jmlchristensen@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 19:09:30 -0700
Reply-to: rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


--- John Wheeler <jdwheeler42@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> [per - Wed Sep 24 16:01:48 2003]:
> 
> > I propose a new treaty clause: Surrender.
> > 
> > If both nations accept the surrender, the surrendering player dies.
> 
> This would definitely make for shorter games, but I'm not sure they
> would be more fun (IMHO, of course).  One thing I loved to do in Civ2
> was to capture a weak country's capital, make peace, and use the country
> as a supply of unit to bribe.  (Part of the reason was that such units
> usually would have no home city and thus no upkeep, but that's not the
> case in Freeciv.)
> 
> Looking at a historical example, Japan and Germany didn't cease to exist
> or become part of the United States when they surrendered after World
> War II.  Instead, the US occupied both countries (and has military bases
> there to this day), without allowing Japanese or German troops to occupy
> US territory.
> 
> In other words, "Surrender" would not be so much a new treaty clause as
> it would be a diplomatic state.  (Perhaps "Occupied" would be a good
> name for it.)  If country A is occupied by country B, effectively B
> would have all the privileges of alliance with A, but A would only have
> the advantages of peace with B.  One exception to this is that I would
> have diplomats of both countries still act as if they were both at peace
> with each other.
> 
> As far as making the game shorter, "Occupied" would count towards an
> "Allied" victory.

Speaking as a confirmed lurker ...

It's funny because I was just thinking about something like "Occupied" 
yesterday except that I was calling it 'Vassalage' . 

The crux of this diplomatic state would be that the vassal couldn't conduct
diplomacy with anyone but the major power, would give shared vision and would
abrograte all existing alliances. 

Rather than voluntarily being absorbed, you become a vassal, bide your time and
wait till the condition are right to reassert your independence.

James Christensen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com



[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]