Limiting Confederations/naps

Darkwords wrote: I beleive this would maintain a more realistic relation, with larger alliances being able to afford wider relations more easily.

That's the point...  big alliances won't even care about throwing out some 10-20 Mio on gold, it just hinders flexibility, for example for temporary confeds allowing a breaking of the 10 square rule (when agreed by both sides, of course...).

Medium sized allies would have to fight much harder to be able to take part in such networks.

So all you would achieve is a change from a net-like structure, with several independent alliances, to a centralistic system, where only 1 or 2 alliances can afford having several bilateral confeds, with those gathering around not being able to help each other...

So just keep it as it is... Those who like peace always find ways to gather, and those who like fights usually tend to be on the individualistic side (at least in Illy). No rules can change that.
A game, where I have to say "Hey, we have same ideas, hate the same kind of people, etc... and I want to help you defend against anyone... but, oh I can't, my list of friends is already full..." would be bound to loose some players due to that...

Subatoi wrote: i feel that players will leave and have been leaving at some percentage because there are power block alliances in place that can keep extending power, and power with no end.

Hadus wrote: I remember seeing this suggested before in a thread, but it's worth mentioning again:   I wish there was more to fight for in Illyriad. Currently, you are fighting for either Pride/Respect/Fun, a Tournament, or less frequently land. I wish there were more ways, especially with crafting coming up, to engage in combat without putting your city at risk. Perhaps "archaeology" squares that you can dig at to discover valuables, but which you must protect with an army or risk being pushed off it. Or make the resource harvesting sites last longer, with the caravan moving back and forth, creating an intermittant flow of res until the site runs dry. Again, protected by an army.   If anything, it would make for some interesting diplomatic decisions. An archaeological site appears between players of two large alliances, and they must work out (via politics or force) who gets the spot, or how to share it. Perhaps this would at least stir the pot between alliances and confederations (I'm not looking to cause outbreaks).

There is a MUCH simpler way to do this than to tax.  An alliance should need to purchase spots for NAPs and Confeds before they can commit to them (Both sides need to have a free slot), and the cost should increase for each one purchased, say 3000 gold for the first NAP, 6000 for the second, 12000 for the third, 24000 for the fourth, 48000 for the fifth, ect.  Getting a 20th slot would cost a whopping 1,572,864,000 gold to buy, and that's just for NAPs.  Confeds could start at 7 or 8k.  

Subatoi wrote: I like it..

Ditto.