3 ms·
Binding or non-binding treaties? Because in diplomacy everyone is always making non-binding treaties, promises and threats - and that's where the betrayal come
by munk-a 4y ago
Binding or non-binding treaties? Because in diplomacy everyone is always making non-binding treaties, promises and threats - and that's where the betrayal comes in. I have heard of some people using binding treaties in diplomacy (i.e. three turn ceasefire between France and Prussia) but that has always struck me as a terrible idea because you're shifting moves into the open and things get boring and cliquish.
- ghaff 4y agoI think I've played both ways (or at least played in a group where people didn't break treaties even if they could) but it's been years.
- SamBam 4y agoA "binding" treaty where the terms of the treaty are supposedly binding, but, like on the real world stage, the only penalties for breaking them is a lowered trust from all the other countries/players, sounds fine. A binding treaty where if you break them someone will say "that's against the rules of the game, and the rest of us will stop playing if you don't comply" sounds terrible.
- User23 4y ago> someone will say "that's against the rules of the game, and the rest of us will stop playing if you don't comply" sounds terrible. And yet, that’s how the USD is going to lose its reserve currency status in the next few decades, if not considerably sooner.
- taneq 4y agoThat’s an example of lowered trust, not of the other players leaving the planet (or persuading the US to do so).
- AntiRemoteWork 4y ago