RBP2 Lurker Discussion Thread - No Players!

[Reagan]

Does everyone else think that replacement civ leaders should be under the influence of treaties negotiated by previous players?

It seems a little odd to me that the Inca are still bound by the NAP's negotiated two leaders ago. Makes it hard to get a fresh diplomatic start.

The counterpoint to that is to look at it from the standpoint of real world examples. If the US enters into an agreement (whether formalized as a treaty or left as a firm, informal understanding), it does so with a country and not merely whomever happens to be leading that country at the time. With certain exceptions (e.g., Obama's recent repudiation of our missle shield commitments to Poland), most presidents tend to honor the diplomatic commitments of their predecessors. The same should hold true in an MP Civ game, too, IMO.