"Defeats the purpose" was a poor choice of words. And now i remember that we have disagreed about how best to explain the current process of minerals becoming useful stuff. The advisability of trading "industry" is bound up with other issues such as how we show/explain the industrial focus after minerals are exhausted, and how diplomatic action is sequenced with the turns. In other words, i'd rather leave the question until we've established more diplomatic groundwork.Geoff the Medio wrote:How so...?eleazar wrote:I really don't think non-stockpile-able resources should be tradable in any situation. It defeats part of the purpose of making them non-stockpile-able.
I don't see a reason to not trade industry... An empire could find a niche selling access to its massive industrial capacity, without worrying about other empires stockpiling (as with minerals) and thereby eliminating their dependence on bought resources.
It just a general reaction to the frequency that kriktone, (and other's i think) have suggested "automatically initiated renegotiating" as the response to a certain kind of situation. I'm not necessarily saying that treaties should never be renegotiated, but that i consider it a non-desirable solution which we should try to avoid.Geoff the Medio wrote:Which specific suggestion is this referring to?eleazar wrote:I also don't like the idea of treaties needing frequent and unpredictable "re-negotiations."
krikkitone wrote:I don't expect the Average FO player to be as stupid as the average home buyer, nor to I expect the Treaties to be as complicated as the average mortgage.
"Less complicated than the average mortgage," is not quite a stunning endorsement. Because after all, few people read mortgages for fun.
Most players would try to maintain a cushion... but it's a tough, and changing universe out there. There will be powerful empires bent on the player's destruction. The best laid plans will frequently go awry.krikkitone wrote:If a Player manages their economy at the bare edge of expectations, then they should be forced to constantly renegotiate Treaties involving that Economy. But Most Players would probably maintain some type of a cushion.
Duration of Treaties
The duration of treaties has been mentioned. It's important to have a clear concept of how long a treaty should last if we are going to have the concept of "treaty breaking." I'm actually not convinced that AIs need this concept, with it's converse, "trustworthiness," because it could lead to an AI that can be unfairly manipulated, like the classic "diplomacy" pic does... but that's another questions.
I'm going to try to comprehensively lay out the options. I won't consider pure "trade" treaties where players make a one-time exchange of maps/resources/planets/techs/etc.
It's quite possible that we'll use a combination of these approaches either automatically bound to certain kinds of treaty clauses, and/or chosen as an option in treaty formation.
The treaty is in effect indefinitely, until one party breaks it, and thus ends it.
The treaty is in effect only as long as both parties want it. Either party may announce their withdrawal at any time. The treaty ends a set number of turns later, but is not considered "broken" unless it is violated without the proper withdrawal announcement.
The treaty is in effect an automatic or diplomatically chosen number of turns.
The treaty is in effect until a specified condition is met. IMHO overcomplicated.