Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Idea: Setting terms before battle

  1. #1
    robotica erotica Member Colovion's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Victoria, Canada
    Posts
    2,295

    Default Idea: Setting terms before battle

    When you send a diplomat to a small unit of soldiers, rebel or otherwise, and tell them to surrender or you'll attack them, they unvariably scoff at your proposal. Try bribing them and they're reluctant, but bring enough gold and you'll have then disband or join your side; expensive.

    Once you actually bring an army to bear, it's a much more immediate threat but those on the field aren't able to say "oh crap, maybe we made a mistake!"

    I think that should be changed, but that would also mean implimenting, as per MTW, taking hostages.

    Anyone have any other ideas along this end?
    robotica erotica

  2. #2
    Magister Vitae Senior Member Kraxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Frederiksberg, Denmark
    Posts
    7,129

    Default Re: Idea: Setting terms before battle

    Well, yes that would be nice. But wouldn't that eliminate diplomats to some extent if you only need to have an army near an enemy to initiate diplomacy.
    But I would indeed like to have the rebels (and enemies for that matter) become 'softer' in diplomacy when you have overwhelming strength behind your words.
    You may not care about war, but war cares about you!


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO