So hopefully this suggestion should be fairly self explanatory, and hopefully any of you who think its a good idea will help develop it into something workable.

We already have treaties, where two or more districts/cities work in harmony to achieve something greater through mutual assent. What I'm proposing is coding something in where this is represented within the game itself. I see it working something like this:
 

• One Godfather Chairman proposes the treaty with another Godfather. If it is accepted, this links the two cities in a treaty. This is a business treaty and a mutual treaty of non aggression.
• Whilst the treaty in enforce, you can invite members of the other district to your OCs. Obviously if this is a treaty between districts of the same city it has no effect.
• Whilst in a treaty district, you gain bonuses for being in that district equal to one half the bonuses a member of that district would get. For instance, if members of that district get +50 to their defence for their fortifications, you would get a +25 whilst there
• As you are 'familiar' with the area, the penalties for being further away from your home district would be halved.
• You receive +10% to info against members of the treaty district. You are familiar with these people, you do business with them, they are more recognisable in crowds etc.
   

 That's all I've come up with at the moment, so as you can see it requires work and development. What do you guys think?

It was one of the reasons I suggested the reduced penalties for distance, however I appreciate where you are coming from Squishy, hence why i asked for further input and assistance in developing it :p But yes I like your idea very much :D

two ideas to add to this,

for a penalty, if you trust someone enough to let them in your forts they will have a easier time killing you and you wouldn't see them as a potential threat so you aren't keeping as close of an eye on them. aka those you have a treaty with you can ignore a certain percent of your forts and they have a higher chance of stealthing with bg wacks and normal wacks.

the second idea being that any godfather can form treaty with another godfather, this wouldn't be just limited to GF chairmens. (though we might have to change how forts work inside cities or we could be leave it because this could add something interesting to war, i also see this as being private you won't know except word of mouth who has treaties.  aka i am from the suburbs so i would have no clue if north side and south side formed a treaty. only the godfathers would now and it would effect all crews in the district.

the forts would still protect even once the person died like normal but, treaties stay in place until a new godfather takes the place or the former godfather has no forts left.

Sorry Tesla, I should have said that, but it slipped my mind. Of course it would be secret, only the respective Districts would know about it, and anyone who happened to have spies in those districts.

I'd like to make two suggestions for this, because I am very supportive of it.

1. Crewleaders should form treaties rather than Godfathers. I completely recognize that the Godfather is the head of the district, but I think diplomacy should be conducted individually by CLs. First, CLs hold the majority of those adhering the treaty; most of the members of districts are in CL HQs, not GF HQs. Second, some districts don't have Godfathers but still want to conduct diplomacy. Third, (and I don't want to argue about this, but) diplomacy for this game is effectively just "don't fuck up and you won't get fucked up." Putting the onus on Crewleaders to make active choices of friends or foes will require them to be better judges of character.
2. Just some ideas about how I think treaties could work:

• Treaties cost $5,000,000 for each participant and expire after 25 days.
• Upon expiration, each participant is refunded their $5,000,000 plus an additional $5,000,000.
• Treaties are only visible to Made Men in participating crews.
• Treaties are broken in the following ways:
  • A participating crewleader dies. In this case, the surviving participant receives $20,000,000.
  • A participating crewleader terminates the treaty. In this case, the terminating participant receives $10,000,000. The other participant receives nothing.
• Treaties have the following terms (participating crews A & B):
  • Crew A's gun strengths are increased proportionally to the number of Crew B members in their current city (and vice versa) (similar to the loyalty system for CLs).
  • All of Crew A's members are visible to Crew B (and vice versa).
  • Crew A's defenses are reduced proportionally to the number of Crew B members in their current city (and vice versa).

Let me know what you think! I'd really like to see a diplomacy feature like this. 

I can agree with your stipulation on CLs and GFs rather than Chairmen, it also opens it up for cities in the same district having links with different districts. I fail to see the benefit of the money though, as Conning someone into a treaty prior to a takedown would become a semi common practice and in my opinion, make users wary of actually accepting ad using the feature. However, the attack and defence bonuses and penalties seem good in my opinion.

To balance it out, you could have a 'at odds' and 'at war' options also which has penalties for people that are at war with one another and visiting the enemies city. The treaties is the 'benefits', the 'at odds' and 'at war' options are the penalties.

The penalty options need not be an agreement between anyone, just a click of a button and it's declared via the coffee shops.

I wanted the entry cost, expiration, and reward simply to raise the stakes of the treaty. If you can jump in and out of one with no cost or trouble, then they won't be taken seriously. The numbers I offered could obviously be modulated to suit the feature, the ones I provided were merely an example.

Scarfo, while I actually entirely agree with you, I think the "at war" option wouldn't ever actually play a role in the game. It would only be flipped on just as a takedown begins, so it doesn't actually provide any additional choices to be made. Obviously, you aren't going to set some crew to "at war" without the means to prosecute a takedown. So I think we'd need to rework it a bit to actually make it a separate choice from actually going to war, otherwise it'd just be something we flip on just before removing someone.

Yeah I figured it'll only flip on during war time, yet some wars last a little longer than a few waves, so I figured during the actual war there would be harsher penalties for entering an enemies City/District. It would prevent campers, and those setting up HQ's right in the thick of things to boost stats, and offset the gains from treaties.

As opposed to an 'at odds' option which means a slight decrease in stats in direct comparison to a treaty, which would be the more permanent thing to offset 'hostile' families from coming into a city.

The 'at war' feature would be strictly to be used during take downs and wars. The 'at odds' would be the one to offset the treaty and balance the games day-to-day gameplay.

I offer two options, as if there is an at odds function only the gains would be better used from treaties, and the penalties could just be avoided during everyday gameplay. When a war kicks off, this would be how the balance would truly take place to offset the gains had over general day-to-day gameplay.

Just ideas though, and thinking more about it, it does seem a little complex.

Ok, so I agree with a financial penalty to set up the treaty, but I'd say keep it semi permanent. Someone has to die or physically dissolve the treaty to exit it. Also I wouldn't financially reward people for treaties beyond the additional money one would naturally generate through OCs and perhaps increased travel between the two locations. There should be financial ramifications for treaties, not a way to generate more income after a few weeks or a takedown. 

scarfo, not sure just how much an at odds or at wR tab would be used, although there's no reason why not if it was balanced out properly, perhaps the reverse of the treaty. My only concern is that it would perhaps segregate the cities and dissuade people from travelling outside of a couple of select districts.

The Rock, I mean Chris_Vaughn, I see your point. With the numbers as they are, and the cities still rebuilding, it may make some cities less visited. However, it would also mean local residents stay more local to combat the trend and the populations and activity reflects the city size.

I personally stick to PH and NY, because it's more realistic in a role-play sense than to be in another city, or city hopping all the time. This is just me though, and I understand the game mechanics and achievements promote intercity travel.

I'm just trying to think of ways to combat the positives, or rather balance them out. I love the idea, and will have more of a think on some balances. And yeah, my idea for the 'at odds' or 'hostile' tab would be a direct counter to the positives in the 'treaty' 'friendly' tab.

So lets see if I can tidy this up a bit.

• Treaty costs to set up. Cost based on lowest rank of the two parties involved.

1. Chairman Godfather - Cost $25,000,000 - Involves whole cities.
2. Godfather - Cost $10,000,000 - Involves whole districts
3. Crew Leader - Cost $5,000,000 - Involves individual crews.

• Treaties are cancelled in one of 3 ways:

1. Either Party cancels the Treaty.
2. The death of Either Party

• Whilst the treaty in enforce, you can invite members of the other district to your OCs. Obviously if this is a treaty between districts of the same city it has no effect.
• Treaties have the following terms (participating crews A & B):

1. Crew A's gun strengths are increased proportionally to the number of Crew B members in their current city (and vice versa) (similar to the loyalty system for CLs).
2. All of Crew A's members are visible to Crew B (and vice versa).
3. Crew A's defenses are reduced proportionally to the number of Crew B members in their current city (and vice versa) vs Crew B and any Crews they have treaties with.
4. Crew A's defences are boosted by 50% of the value of Crew B's Fortifications whilst in Crew B's City/District (ans vice versa).
5. Crew A's penalties for being outside their home district are halved whilst in Crew B's District to represent increased familiarity with the area (and vice Versa)
6. Chances of Crew A intercepting a WS involving Crew B are 20% higher (and vice versa) due to working with and recognising these people more regularly.
   
    

So Denam, Scarfo and Squishy how are we looking now? Whilst it still looks top heavy with pluses rather than penalties, it does open you up more easily to being slaughtered by a crew that you have a treaty with. I removed the money and time limits you suggested Denam as i believed the Treaty itself should be reward enough rather than further reward from the game.

Ooops, it says disolved in one of 3 ways because I had thought the murder of one of your MM at the hands of another MM from the other crew should cancel the Treaty, but I decided that it should be up to the CLs to do, rather than automatic, which would mean in the event of a take down, only the first shot fired would gain the treaty benefits.

I have reservations about having Godfathers setting up treaties for people outside their own crews. If I'm overruled on that, I'm fine with it. I just feel like this should be something that is crew-based rather than district-based, with the cost rooted in size or population of HQ.

Other than that, I have one clarification. In your "terms" list, it seems like you've got some superfluous/contradictory stats:

Crew A's gun strengths are increased proportionally to the number of Crew B members in their current city (and vice versa) (similar to the loyalty system for CLs).

Seems to be similar/synonymous to:

Crew A's penalties for being outside their home district are halved whilst in Crew B's District to represent increased familiarity with the area (and vice Versa)

Is there a way we could merge these two for simplicity? Like, the penalties for being outside Crew A's city are proportionally reduced based on the number of Crew B members nearby. So if no Crew B members are in the same city with a member of Crew A, the Crew A member has the full penalty for being far from home. If 25% of Crew B's members are in the same city with a member of Crew A, the penalty is 0. From 25-50%, the member of Crew A gets a gun bonus, maxing out at the bonus-equivalent of the penalty at 50%.

Crew A's defenses are reduced proportionally to the number of Crew B members in their current city (and vice versa) vs Crew B and any Crews they have treaties with.

This seems contradictory to:

Crew A's defenses are boosted by 50% of the value of Crew B's Fortifications whilst in Crew B's City/District (ans vice versa).

So I'd like to rephrase "defenses" to be "BG and Fort efficacy," so that this would have no impact on non-BGed members. I don't think they should share fortifications, because those are HQ fortifications. Signing a treaty isn't letting them into your HQ, it's just putting you on better terms, you know? So I'd alter it to:

Crew A's BG and Fort efficacy are reduced proportionally to the number of Crew B members in their current city. 

I actually really really like this, because it has its own built-in "don't make treaties with everyone," because then you'll be dropping the strength of your own forts and BGs.

So now I'll tidy up my thoughts and we can further discuss it:

• Treaty costs to set up. Cost based on size of HQ or number of members.

1. 10-member - $2,500,000
2. 15-member - $3,000,000
3. 20-member - $4,000,000
4. 40-member - $5,000,000

• Treaties are cancelled in one of 2 ways:

1. Either Party cancels the Treaty.
2. The death of Either Party

• Whilst the treaty in enforce, you can invite members of the other district to your OCs. Obviously if this is a treaty between districts of the same city it has no effect.
• Treaties have the following terms (participating crews A & B):

1. "Away from home" penalties for Crew A's gun strength are reduced proportionally to the number of Crew B members in the same city. In Crew A's home city or if the number of Crew B members exceeds 25% (up to 50%) of Crew B's total members, a bonus is granted instead (the bonus for maxing out at 50% or more is equivalent to the original penalty).
2. Crew A's BG and Fort strengths are reduced proportionally to the number of Crew B members in their current city (and vice versa).
3. Chances of Crew A intercepting a WS involving Crew B are 20% higher (and vice versa) due to working with and recognizing these people more regularly.
4. All of Crew A's members are visible to Crew B (and vice versa).

So now we're down to 4 terms instead of 6. Which, I think it's beneficial to keep the complexity of the terms down. Basically, your gun strength goes up and your BGs and Forts go down when your treaty crew members are nearby. You can see them all in locals, and you are more likely to snag their WSs. Seems simple to me!

OK Denam, allow me to clarify a few points

The reason I suggested allowing 3 different leaders to make treaties is because there are three different leaders to each city. The Godfather Chairman is the de facto leader of the city. As such they can make decisions for the whole city, regardless of whether people under them agree with it or not. Personally I think it adds another dimension to the treaty in that you could find your family thrust into a treaty with another family you don't like. What you as a CL decide to do about this is then up to you. Do you secretly plan to take out your enemy? Do you quietly amass power and take out your own GF Chairman? If the two cities go to war against a 3rd city, you might now have the added strength needed to take out your GF or your enemy surreptitiously.

Similarly with the GF himself, he can make decisions for his whole district. With the same consequences as above.

Allowing GFs and GF chairmen to enforce treaties has basis in real life too, for instance when Capone took control. Just my reasoning for that, but you are well within your right to disagree if you feel it is fundamentally wrong.

As for the supposed contradictory statements:

The defences:

Crew A's defenses are reduced proportionally to the number of Crew B members in their current city (and vice versa) vs Crew B and any Crews they have treaties with.

This is in reference to their defence to crew B (and their allies) whilst in their own city only. This is because you are trusting the people you have a treaty with and are allowing them increased access to you and your family. If they choose to stab you in the back, they are already behind your defences and its a surprise, giving them an edge.

Crew A's defenses are boosted by 50% of the value of Crew B's Fortifications whilst in Crew B's City/District (ans vice versa).

This is in Reference to their Defence to everyone whilst in Crew B's city. If we being from NY are in PH we get no fortification defence because we are outside our own district, however if we have a treaty with PH, we would get half of their fortification defence.

 The attack Bonuses:

Crew A's gun strengths are increased proportionally to the number of Crew B members in their current city (and vice versa) (similar to the loyalty system for CLs).

This is to represent the apparent increase in crew size. It applies where ever you are as long as there are members of that crew in your home city. At times of war, when perhaps you are all in a 3rd city, this bonus would disappear as there would be far fewer members of crew B in crew A's city.

Crew A's penalties for being outside their home district are halved whilst in Crew B's District to represent increased familiarity with the area (and vice Versa)

This is permanent as long as the treaty is in effect, regardless of who is where. I can't find it, but I believe I remember Squishy saying that the further you are away from your home city/district the weaker you are. This was to help offset this weakness when you are in a Treaty City/District.

One last thing though, I should have said that these treaties only affect made Men and above, as associates wouldn't have the clout to know about these treaties.

I think I understand where you're coming from on the GFs. And on a realistic basis, I do think you're right. But I fear it would also make for duplicitous treaties: i.e. GF A makes treaty with GF B, then CL A (under GF A) makes treaty with CL B (under GF B), and now Crews A and B have two active treaties altering their stats. I fear that this would complicate things dramatically. So if we go the Godfather route, I think it would be good to have it being just Godfathers (with treaties covering entire district). If we go the CL route, then we don't let GFs make treaties for the whole district and only their GF crews. At this point, I'd be comfortable going either way.

So let's say Crew A is from New York and Crew B is from Philly.

This is in reference to their defence to crew B (and their allies) whilst in their own city only. This is because you are trusting the people you have a treaty with and are allowing them increased access to you and your family. If they choose to stab you in the back, they are already behind your defences and its a surprise, giving them an edge.

So for Crew A, defenses are lowered in New York if attacked by Crew B? Meaning, your defenses are not affected outside of your home city or against non-Crew B members. I don't think that's enough of a downside. I mean, that basically just cancels out forts, since it's only applicable in home city. I think it should be in any city, and their defense drop should be applicable to all shots, not just ones coming from Crew B.

My reasoning is this; you're making a treaty with the crew or crews in the district (the people), not the district itself (the location). When you've got a lot of treaty people around, your BGs are more relaxed and aren't concerned about at threat; regardless of what city or district you're in.

Is this how you imagined the gun stats as well? You only get a gun boost when attacking members of Crew B? Because now we're looking at no upside at all. I don't think anyone would make an agreement that lowers their crew's defenses towards a crew and increases that crew's gun strengths towards your crew just so you can invite them to OCs.

So I think the gun strength bonus and the BG efficacy reduction should be applicable to all shots from any crew and based on the number of treaty participants in your city.

I'm also unconvinced that crews should share forts. Is there a particular reason you want that in? Because from a realism perspective, like I've said before, I don't think crews with treaties would be sharing HQs (which is where those fortifications are). From a game perspective, I don't see why defenses drop around lots of treaty participants but your defenses go up in the treaty participants' home city. That seems contradictory and difficult to plan for.

Point taken regarding the pluses and minuses. If GF treaties were allowed, I think it should be the higher value treaty takes precedence. For instance, if GF A and GF B make a treaty, and then CL A and CL B also make a treaty, then the bonuses for the GF treaty outweigh those of the CL treaty. The CL treaty would therefore have no meaningful effect unless the GFs cancelled their treaty.

Also, you should not be able to make a treaty between two crews in the same district. Is two crews from Northside could not have a treaty with each other.

Just a thought though. Why would having a treaty lower your defence to people not in that treaty? I can understand your defence being lower against the person you are in a treaty with and people they have a treaty with, but why would your defence be lower against a family that neither of you have any connection to?

Sorry, re read your post and saw your reasoning. I would disagree though. Even if you are surrounded by people you trust, your body guards should be alert, otherwise you would get the same penalty in your home district even without the treaty. You are home surrounded by your family, you couldn't be safer, so again your bgs would be more relaxed