Terms...what are they good for?
The interesting discussion is already brewing...who judges what terms are fair or not? Well the interesting thing is the alliances who's signatures are on the terms are the most important to satisfy the terms. What others think or feel really doesn't matter as much.
I figure nows a good time for me to visit my feelings on white peace and what I feel is acceptable terms. First and foremost, I am one who gives props where props are due. Those fighting honorably and following treaty obligations in my opinion should be eligible for white peace. Those who troll, fight dishonorably, bandwaggon or start conflicts without thinking the consequences should be held to reps. What is fair reps I guess is the next question..and terms for that matter...
First on treaty suspensions or cancels. I honestly feel that cancels or suspensions of treaties infringe on the sovereign rights of an alliance. I feel it should limited to approved actions if anything, but don't feel another alliance should have the right to impose their viewpoints on another alliance due to surrender terms. If treaty cancellations or suspensions are to be made, they should be a result of mandatory decreased military levels, and it should be at the treaty partners discretion. It's not something that should be due to terms of surrender.
Tech deals...I think tech deals at cost (150 Tech for 3mill) should be ok, on limited measure. In my opinion this shouldn't exceed 1/3 of the alliances tech level. However this should be guaranteed tech for rebuilding of the alliances warred. Additional tech at 100 tech for 3 mill, could be a negotiated deal as it provides the surrender alliance a way to use money for growing the smaller guys of the alliance through legitimate means, while still satisfying surrender obligations. This doesn't limit the alliances ability to exist.
Monetary reparations should be made only in cases of smaller nations being affected. Limited monetary reps to help rebuild the smaller nations of an alliance to at least workable levels.
Reduction of military...I think it should be either nukes or navies. Navies hurts economically due to cost, but also allow you to blockage really quickly hence more economic hurt to nations quickly. Nukes are more of a protective measure..easy to monitor, and meant to limit but not "kick while down". Most can rebuild nuclear arsenals without too much trouble or expense.
Time periods...this is and interesting thing...I don't feel terms should last long...this "game" moves pretty quickly at times. Month...thats reasonable, 3 months is pushing it...a year...WAY OFF BASE. That is one of the few things I actually agree with MK on.
Overall terms should be fair. Give both alliances a chance to recover, and the surrendering alliance a little bit of humility, but not humiliation...or the sentiment of those currently in MK begin to sprout...
0 Comments
Recommended Comments
There are no comments to display.