Trilateral and Multilateral Treaties

Home of SOLAR STARFIRE, 6th edition, rules based on the upcoming history of the Terran Solar Union.

Moderators: SDS Members, SDS Owner

Forum rules
1. Nothing obscene.
2. No advertising or spamming.
3. No personal information. Mostly aimed at the posting of OTHER people's information.
4. No flame wars. We encourage debate, but it becomes a flame when insults fly and tempers flare.

Try to stick with the forum's topic. Threads that belong to another forum will be moved to that forum.

Trilateral and Multilateral Treaties

Postby SCC on Wed 02 Aug 2017 04:00

OK, this only just occurred to me, but the treaties in Starfire are all bilateral only, you can't back trilateral or multilateral one's like you see in the books. How hard would it be to implement them?
SCC
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 739
Joined: Fri 08 Mar 2013 15:11

Re: Trilateral and Multilateral Treaties

Postby Whitecold on Wed 02 Aug 2017 11:16

I think it should be quite easy if you allow players to write their own treaties. The only treaties that actually have gameplay effect are the trade treaties and amalgamation. The rest are obligations, so it is up to the individual empire if they honor the terms of the treaty.
I could imagine a variety of custom treaties, just what comes up at the top of my head:

Trade union: Members must sign free trade agreement with each member, no more than LT with anyone else.
Federation: All members are required to support any member at war, declarations of war may only be issued by majority vote.
Satellite states: Client states receive guarantees of protection, but may not conduct diplomacy of their own, and have to support their protector in times of war.
Forced free trade: Signee must pay percentage of the trade bonus to the other party, likely a treaty that has been forced in the aftermath of a war or under threat of overwhelming force.
Whitecold
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Fri 19 Sep 2014 15:03

Re: Trilateral and Multilateral Treaties

Postby Cralis on Fri 04 Aug 2017 01:18

I took a little bit of time to think about this and I think there's a little more to it. Really, a multilateral treaty is simply a treaty that has more than one signatory. And the success or failure of the treaty as a whole COULD depend upon the signatory of every empire involved. What I'd do is have some sort of metric to follow-up and depending upon how many empires fail to sign, any who have already signed may pull out.

Some treaties could easily be multilateral. For example, military alliances could easily have more than one signatory and all are bound to each other under the same arrangement. Failure to fulfill the obligations of such an alliance should cause a roll for EVERY alliance member to potentially leave the alliance. Non-intercourse, non-aggression pacts, etc. could all be multilateral.

Partnerships and amalgamations could not be multilateral. And the way we do trade in Starfire, we forbid trade triangles so any multilateral treaty would have to specify who is trading with whom, or everyone is trading only with the major partner, or something.

Now what WhiteCold is talking about is something a lot more than a multilateral treaty. He is talking about a semi-government or federal government framework under which signatories would sign up. I don't think there is anything wrong with those, but I think we'd have to approach each one differently.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10195
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Trilateral and Multilateral Treaties

Postby Whitecold on Fri 04 Aug 2017 09:59

The treaties I described are a bit more involved, but that doesn't mean they cannot be used for simple multilateral treaties. That is the nice thing about leaving it open to the players, they can exactly write out what they want, and are not forced to pick from a list of options which may include stuff neither side wants.

As far as pulling out goes, for some it might make sense, for others it does not make any sense at all, and I don't see any way to determine this a simple chart what the proper foreign policy response is. I'm afraid codifying this will mostly introduce artifical stupidity for NPRs, instead of actually helping.
How do you quantify when a race will pull out of a fleet limitation treaty? It will definitely be different from a race not signing up on a defensive treaty, or a trade alliance. 4X computer opponents are prone to getting it completely wrong, doing it right in pen&paper seems like a stretch to me.
Whitecold
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Fri 19 Sep 2014 15:03

Re: Trilateral and Multilateral Treaties

Postby Cralis on Fri 04 Aug 2017 14:35

Whitecold wrote:The treaties I described are a bit more involved, but that doesn't mean they cannot be used for simple multilateral treaties. That is the nice thing about leaving it open to the players, they can exactly write out what they want, and are not forced to pick from a list of options which may include stuff neither side wants.


Oh absolutely true! I've seen treaties that includedno-man's land, military alliances with designated individual and shared patrol areas, and military treaties for war that defined how the spoils were to be split among participants in the alliance. This kind of detail is really only possible with players.

As far as pulling out goes, for some it might make sense, for others it does not make any sense at all, and I don't see any way to determine this a simple chart what the proper foreign policy response is. I'm afraid codifying this will mostly introduce artifical stupidity for NPRs, instead of actually helping.
How do you quantify when a race will pull out of a fleet limitation treaty? It will definitely be different from a race not signing up on a defensive treaty, or a trade alliance. 4X computer opponents are prone to getting it completely wrong, doing it right in pen&paper seems like a stretch to me.


What I meant was if you have 5 races contemplating a multilateral alliance, but two refuse to sign it, the remaining three (well two, really, since the last one is he who proposed it) should have a chance to recant and say "oh we were all for this as long as everyone agreed, but that didn't happen" ... or maybe they stay on and it's only thise three who make an alliance.

Depending upon treaty type, empire sizes, etc. should all be taken into account.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10195
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Trilateral and Multilateral Treaties

Postby Dawn Falcon on Sat 19 Aug 2017 11:59

Cralis wrote:Partnerships and amalgamations could not be multilateral. And the way we do trade in Starfire, we forbid trade triangles so any multilateral treaty would have to specify who is trading with whom, or everyone is trading only with the major partner, or something.


I also have house rules for trade networks;

viewtopic.php?f=65&t=2597&p=30931&hilit=network#p30931

It uses bilateral treaties to create interweaving trade relationships.
User avatar
Dawn Falcon
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 1558
Joined: Thu 02 Jul 2009 17:26


Return to Solar Starfire

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron