6. There was talk before of trading current minimaps, accompagnied by some sort of "don't settle in our future territory" deal. I was thinking on asking them something like that, so that we at least aren't military pressured by RPG (I doubt they would provoke us, but you never know). Any objections on proposing it to them again?
7. Non-aggresion deals (somewhat related to 6.) Last proposal was to have 20-turn non-aggresion deals, which get automatically renewed in every in-game trade, and which after 10 turns would lead to either another deal, or some kind of negotiation of non-aggresion. True surprise attacks aren't possible, as there is at least a few turns warning if the other team doesn't agree with deals in the last 10 turns of a non-agression pact, but it will create some kind of a running short term relation with each other, so that even if we don't commit in the long term, we will get the benefits of it if we want to. Plus, it doesn't set and end date to a non-agression deal. (it might be an idea for the Vox relation as well)
DeepO
7. Non-aggresion deals (somewhat related to 6.) Last proposal was to have 20-turn non-aggresion deals, which get automatically renewed in every in-game trade, and which after 10 turns would lead to either another deal, or some kind of negotiation of non-aggresion. True surprise attacks aren't possible, as there is at least a few turns warning if the other team doesn't agree with deals in the last 10 turns of a non-agression pact, but it will create some kind of a running short term relation with each other, so that even if we don't commit in the long term, we will get the benefits of it if we want to. Plus, it doesn't set and end date to a non-agression deal. (it might be an idea for the Vox relation as well)
DeepO
Comment