Does anyone think they would like the ability for proposing pre-defined treaties.  Maybe under the
send message box, there could be a 'propose treaty' box.  You could have various
templates, that you would fill in:

Agree not to attack each other for N turns.
Agree not to attack territories X,Y,Z for N turns.
Agree not to attack each other until player X is gone.
Agree not to attack each other until N players are elminated.

ANTAEO until the next set of cards is worth N.

etc.

I think you could even have an interesting alternative mode where these treaties
are enforced by the game engine.

just hypothetically, it could be enforced by changing the dice odds. For instance, 6v6 attack could turn into a 6v9 and by making you teammates for the agreed upon time therefore allowing team placement or reinforcement. Could be a kind of cool future adaptation of the game.

AdamN wrote:

just hypothetically, it could be enforced by changing the dice odds. For instance, 6v6 attack could turn into a 6v9 and by making you teammates for the agreed upon time therefore allowing team placement or reinforcement. Could be a kind of cool future adaptation of the game.

 

Yeah - you could have a 'penalty' like that for breaking a treaty, or the engine could just disallow you from making those attacks. 

Ozyman wrote:

AdamN wrote:

just hypothetically, it could be enforced by changing the dice odds. For instance, 6v6 attack could turn into a 6v9 and by making you teammates for the agreed upon time therefore allowing team placement or reinforcement. Could be a kind of cool future adaptation of the game.

 

Yeah - you could have a 'penalty' like that for breaking a treaty, or the engine could just disallow you from making those attacks. 

Completely disallowing any attacks on people in a treaty may not always work, there are times when it's necessary to go through each other's territories to get to your enemies.
I've seen people in unofficial alliances move their troops out of certain territories to allow one another through, not allowing that could cause complications...or people might even just continue to use unofficial alliances rather than being restricted by an official treaty.

I've seen this on other Risk sites, and I really don't like the idea of a system based diplomacy.

I think I get why they sound cool, but I'm just not a fan.  Of course I rarely attempt treaties either.

I don't think i'd like it either, first off it would encourage people to create a lot more treaties. Then those of us who rarely make treaties would be forced into doing so in order to compete. I like the system as it is, treaties are allowed but are not too common.

oh I think it is a completely separate style of play. Maybe a thought for alternative "engine".. I'm not sure that's the right term... much like simultaneous play. Something to think about for far far far future. I wouldn't want it as part of the normal games.

I am entirely against this.. a treaty should always be at risk of being broken.

well - sounds like the people have spoken.  I thought maybe this would be kind of an equilizer, because as it is now I am more likely to make treaties with family, friends, & people I know well, but it's not hard for me to type something up by hand when I want to propose something.

Great thread though Ozy

Personally, I would never use such a system, but I think that it has merits.  Once you are in a treaty, there could be a color outline around the attack box (like team play when you attack a teammate).  This would signify that you are about to violate your treaty.  It would even be nice if this action triggered a private message.  I fully agree with Blackdog that there should not be binding agreements.

How often are treaties violated accidentally?

I would imagine it'd be fairly common in a fogged game.

I hate treaties!  I don't care about other people having them and I certainly don't think that it is cheating, I hate being a part of them.  I'm playing to win in the best way that I think I can and I am not now, or ever, playing for second place.  Treaties will end up screwing somebody in them so why even bother.  If you say "Next turn I'll do X if you do Y so we can balance out the map" that's one thing, but if you say "Hey, don't attack me so Player Z doesn't win" then I don't want any part of it.

I agree what was said before that treaties should have Risk involoved that you will get cheated or screwed or hoodwinked or bamboozeled.