Holy cow my brain hurts
It's nice to give options regarding risk-benefit analyses and would make people think before going to war, but man... this is nuts lol
K.
Personally, I like (G) vs. (G). Low stress, high fun, everybody shakes hands and says good game after the battle.
(E) vs. (E) certainly works for the many who like stress, or have a higher tolerance for it than I do. Cool that the option is there.
However, if (E) vs. (G) automatically means winner takes all, then the risk decision is taken away from (G) isn't it?
Yeah but they are sworn enemies. If anything G vs E in any form should designate the second highest reward...imo.
Or, should it be that (N) vs. (N) is your (G) vs. (G) since (N) is saying "we don't take sides."
and the real battles are actually (E) vs. (G) battling for keeps over ideology.
(N) vs (N) and (G) vs (G) could probably be the same in the fun since...and the (E) vs (G) yeah it could be that way as well ...sworn enemies
In that scenario, (E) wouldn't really fight (E), and (G) wouldn't really fight (G) since they're all of the same ideology. The fight would be good vs. evil, which is relative to their own worldview.
(E) tribes are not on the same team...it's like bandits vs pirates. (G) tribes can defect, so I guess I meant that the (G) tribe who initiated the war would be (E) not both of them.
Could (N) open banks and hold artwork for both (E) and (G)?
Sure...lol. Free trade posts.
Geographically, I'd imagine we'd see (E) start to congregate as well as (G), not wanting the other moving into "their" neighborhood.
(N) would be wherever and depend more on diplomacy, and alliances with both sides. Afterall, arming both (E) and (G) is just good business practice, so long as you're not discovered.