I tried several things recently to manage superpower relationships (not referring to a specific game now) and wanted to hear your opinion.

First, allow me to remind you all of the concept of a "DMZ" and an "NAP", two terms frequently used on the forum.

DMZ, Demilitarized zone, is a province, or collection of provinces, that are free from units, so they can serve as a buffer zone between two nations. France and Italy often agree to a DMZ in Piedmont.

NAP, Non-Aggression Pact, is a loose type of alliance that doesn't involve cooperation between two countries (yet) but simply states their intention not to go to war with each other.

I've recently tried to develop the concept of "MZ", Militarized Zone. In a militarized zone, a fixed number of units can stay and do whatever they want. For example, let's take the example of France and Italy. France is happily expanding in England, and Italy is taking over Austria. (Just an example). A DMZ in Pie is now a good idea, but why not take it a step further.

For example, France could declare "Spain, and all provinces and seas bordering it" an MZ, guarded by no more than one fleet and one army, but, they can do whatever they like, so as not to give too much information to the ally. Likewise, Italy could mirror that decision for Naples and all provinces and seas bordering it.

This could be an /additional/ buffer zone, not as soft as a DMZ, not as hard as a "free zone".

What do you do to manage superpower relationships?

Invade.

A few things:
First, what is the penalty for someone breaking the agreement of an MZ. Breaking an NAP or a DMZ is usually a pretext for war. Would you advise that Italy go to war because there is a fleet in Spain, Portugal, and MAO. It may be practical to make preparations since those are worrisome developments, but does an MZ agreement bear the same weight as does either of the other two.

Second, I believe some of the basic pillars of your idea are slightly off. While the US and the USSR both practiced detente under Kissinger, neither power was actually trying to fulfill the same goal as is a diplopower. While the US and the USSR both wanted to have a distinct advantage over the other and be the world's lone super power, being the lone super power among 6 other diplomacy countries gains you little as your goal of world domination is still far from complete and you become only a target.

I would actually say that detente in diplomacy can only be used towards the very end of the game and is better for bringing about draws than for bringing about the ultimate goal of winning. So it does have its merits, but how advantageous those merits are would definitely be questionable. Calling someone an SOB also has its merits, but again, questionable.

It's interesting to think of how it might apply to gunboat games though, if it became ingrained deepy enough to be understood. One thing I always find curious is the different way people play in gunboat verse with text, everyone seems much more at exhother's throats in gunboat (from my limited experience).

@YJ lol ehm.. yeah sure that can be a solution to a lot of problems.
@patizcool; re: penalty. It's not so much about penalty, it's just that you have an additional buffer zone. If you see an additional troop to the MZ, you simply do what you believe is necessary to resolve the conflict; diplomacy, picking a vulnerable SC or declaring all out war on your ally. Or you can agree to a punishment together; such as sending 2 additional units into your own MZ and waiting for the conflict to pass. The advantage is that all that gives you ample time to prepare for a war with a former ally, whereas a stab often catches you off guard.

As for the last two paragraphs, I'd say just give it a shot!

@AncientMemories; I'd say try it out, but you'd have to "convince" the webdip community of the use of MZs for them to become part of culture, and then you'd need to be able to signal it. Anyways, I don't play gunboat so I don't really know :-)

bump