I haven’t put this in dev suggestions because the State Department would need to make a decision on this and work with foreign entities before we could even consider putting buildings in games - this is simply to see if people would support the idea or not.
So irl the State Department has some pretty cool embassies in other entities, and other entities have their embassies in the US. Why not do something similar in Firestone - the law already covers embassies (see An Act to Establish the Department of State).
Firestone could have embassies in other entities, and other entities could have embassies in Stapleton County, most likely in the City of Prominence. There are two ways that we could get buildings in-game, depending on how dev teams like things.
- Firestone builds an embassy for DoS and sends the model to the foreign entities devs to put in-game and vice-versa.
- The foreign entity’s dev teams make an embassy for us and vice-versa.
Pros of embassies:
- Gives ambassadors a bit more to do than just attending meetings and communicating with entities through official channels.
- Gives the Firestone National Guard more things to do as they could provide protection for the embassies.
- Adds to roleplay.
- Gives us some better places to meet, especially if the meeting is an emergency meeting instead of a well-planned summit.
Cons of embassies:
- Managing them might be easier said than done, requiring a lot of negotiations with foreign entities and their dev teams, etc.
- Dealing with trespassers may be more difficult, although that could be smoothed out in a treaty.
I can’t think of anything else to add to the pros and cons lists, but I’ll update them with your comments.
Of course, there would be a lot more to do than just putting buildings in-game, such as making a treaty similar to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, but it’s just a cool idea that the State Department would like your input on.