League of nations "idea"
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: Miscellaneous
Forum Name: The Caravanserai
Forum Description: A place to just chat about whatever takes your fancy, whether it's about Illyriad or not.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=1609
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 16:11
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: League of nations "idea"
Posted By: Attila the Hun
Subject: League of nations "idea"
Date Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 01:56
|
I have a idea, note this si not a recruitment message. so gms..dont move this..
With all the troubles going on, like current drama in my alliance and what not, or like what happened in the past with tmm. this all could have been avoided more easily with a league of nations."allainces". that way if there is a dispute the allaince rep could alert the other reps whats goign on, and we can all work together to solve it without war. ------------- It's just a game. :) |
Replies:
Posted By: scottfitz
Date Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 02:04
|
interesting idea, ithis could be accomplished with some sort of alliance leader IGM list and possibly a chat room dedicated to this purpose. |
Posted By: Attila the Hun
Date Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 02:17
|
but in ui2 wasnt there going to be chat rooms? or is that a different update? ------------- It's just a game. :) |
Posted By: Nokigon
Date Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 07:45
| I think this is a good idea, although TMM probably would've happened even with this. Alliances who have brains will be able to use this, however. |
Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 12:39
Sounds nice. That will add even more politics to this game (I don't say politics are nice, but it however adds some fun to this game
 ).
|
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 16:00
|
I'm not sure what is proposed. Communications already occur between alliance leaders when a conflict arises. Nige refused to talk to anyone so any LoN would have not changed anything regarding TMM.
But otherwise, alliances in conflict do talk and negotiate. Some better than others. :)
Is LoN intended to be a committee that mediates disputes? Is this supposed to a Security Council? Will the LoN enforce its rulings through military action?
Other than sounding fancy, I don't see anything new that is workable here.
|
Posted By: Gemley
Date Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 17:57
| I support this idea |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 18:24
|
Such legalistic associations are perennially suggested in every sandbox game. Sometimes, such a thing is actually constructed, much to the eventual horror and regret of all involved. For unless it falls apart early on, without exception it becomes the next generation of evil--more resilient, irrational, and blind to reason or persuasion than any which came before. I'll take an evil dictator over a committee any day. |
Posted By: Nokigon
Date Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 18:28
| Why don't instead you have a chat room with your Confeds, that can only be viewed by people who're authorised to do so? |
Posted By: Tordenkaffen
Date Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 18:35
|
Im for anarchy to the greatest extent possible - ad I agree with HM - looking at our own world, whenever people in power congregate it usually ends up with someone getting bombed back to the stoneage. |
Posted By: Azreil
Date Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 18:48
|
there is already a de facto arbitration committee actually in the game everytime there is a major conflict brewing. we know there are many vocal personalities who would immediately intervene and try to mediate things, some with well-meaning intentions, some as kibitzers, some very much the war-mongerers dressed in peacenik's clothing, some just out to gather info. and for me the game has already more than enough of such politics which works out fine at any rate. I prefer this kind of informal and sponataneous mediation to anything close to a league of nations kind of set-up. It is a fact that the real League of Nations then and even the United Nations now are both essentially ineffective at preventing wars and hegemonist adventurisms. Eventually, where such an informal arbitration process has rolled, it is leader talking to leader which solves wars and near-wars here in Illyriad. Just as in real life. |
Posted By: Mr. Ubiquitous Feral
Date Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 20:07
|
I have had this thought as well. A 'League of Alliances'. Each alliance would appoint 1 member as a delegate. The primary goal of the League would be to arbitrate any problems within that group of alliances. Another would be to arbitrate between a member alliance and a non-member. The League would represent a large enough military to enforce all laws, of which I am not inclined to opine. Of course, as in all things, given enough time the League would crumble under its own weight, leaving bitterness and war-burnt lands covering Illyriad. People would be homeless, building refugee camps everywhere. Large regions would suffer from famine and pestilence, leading to enormous populations too sick to work. Resources would diminish and buildings would begin falling apart. Several alliances who had not joined with the League would be seen everywhere sieging the unprotected cities. I could go on, but the pain is too great. It seems like a tough choice to me. Have a nice day! ------------- I am a Machine. |
Posted By: Attila the Hun
Date Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 20:10
|
have a nice day ------------- It's just a game. :) |
Posted By: Grego
Date Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 22:21
That would be better option. |
Nokigon wrote:Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 22:49
| It's hard enough as is to have a war without the 200 confeds and naps being pulled in, making one side get utterly destroyed. The last thing we need is to make it worse by making every alliance have to "agree" on what's ok for an alliance to do. I'm against this idea. |
Posted By: Raritor
Date Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 22:52
|
I also think relations between alliances are good as they are now. Bureocracy is never a good thing. |
Posted By: Mr. Ubiquitous Feral
Date Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 23:03
|
I guess there won't be any refugees. Another job well done, Mr. Feral, very well done. ------------- I am a Machine. |
Posted By: Llyorn Of Jaensch
Date Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 00:12
| Against |
Posted By: scottfitz
Date Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 07:25
| The only part of this thread that is of interest to me is improved inter-alliance communication, a need that would be met fully by private chat functionality |
Posted By: Bragdush the Bald
Date Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 14:13
No to Attilla's League 
Yes to Nokigun's Confederate chat
 and three cheers for me
 |
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 16:26
For most problem solving, mail is a far better method of communication. First, mail offers the writer a superior opportunity to chose his words carefully. Second, chat is so informal that tone and context can often fail when dealing with sensitive issues. Third, chat requires participants to be on-line at the same time which is often not possible in our global community.
I would say chat is useful when the players already have a sound relationship and the issue is small and uncomplicated.
I think the biggest impediment to communication is attitude. The second biggest impediment is some players do not speak english fluently and use google translator which really can screw up tone and context.
|
Posted By: scottfitz
Date Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 17:34
| I agree, overall I do not feel the concept proposed her has any merit, and I agree that the primary mode of communication is and will always be messages, but the ability to set up private chats in addition to mail would be of some use |
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 20:40
|
Agreed, SF & TD. Overall we've seen written communication work quite well in resolving disputes! The key, imo, is that the leaders communicating need to maintain as open a mind as possible to the facts...
I think Chat might help as well, perhaps...
K.
|