On Feb 11, 2008 9:12 AM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Saturday 09 February 2008 7:23 I wrote: > > On Friday 08 February 2008 12:57 Zefram wrote: > > > In that case I suggest that you clarify by expressing it as "protectorate > > > that is also a player". However, I don't think the definition is useful. > > > > I like the notion; it provides an interesting paradigm for inter-nomic > > relations. > > Oh wait, I see what you're saying -- we don't ever actually use the concept. > > Perhaps provinces should be given nonzero default VL*D? (I don't *think* it's > s[p|c]ammable, as becoming a protectorate requires Agoran Consent.) >
That sounds like a great idea to me. The big problem we ran into was that no one wanted to be a protectorate. This might give some advantages to being one. BobTHJ
