PDA

View Full Version : Alliances



Mickey
08-17-2005, 12:41 AM
I'm trying to begin to plan out how alliances will work. It seems to me that forming them would be fairly simple - one player would request an alliance with another player, and that player would either accept or reject.

How about breaking them, though? Can you just attack someone you're allied with? Do you need to officially cancel the alliance first? Should there be a way to view a player's past alliances so you know if they've been true to their past allies?

Any thoughts are welcome.

birq
08-17-2005, 12:59 AM
I figured alliances would be just a person's word and a little mutual trust. I don't think the game should have logic built in to handle them, other than having more than one player occupy a city.

Maybe I'm being a little too simplistic, though.

GeoDude
08-17-2005, 02:56 AM
Why should you have to tell someone, even if you have an alliance with them, that you about the attack them. Does that sound mean?? I say keep it open. With that said, I say you should not have a list of past or current alliances, make people second guess themselves from time to time.

rasqual
08-17-2005, 03:36 AM
I wouldn't hardwire much for this, just now. However, one thing I think you WILL need to hardwire is a method for exchanging assets with allies. I need to be able to give jewels, Geos, and armies to an ally.

This will be interesting, because if alliances remain a "soft" (uncoded for) reality that's just what happens when players interact with each other via e-mail, everyone else may be left wondering for a while. Alliances could be announced, of course.

I think we need a separate forum channel, in a way, where public diplomatic statements could be aired. "I intend to" and so forth.

One other possibility -- you (Mickey) provide a messaging system that also includes the asset exchange mechanism. It could be used for messaging, and would create a running tickler of such exchanges (the history would look a lot like an IM session, rather than these forum posts). Along with the text of the communications would be metadata indicating what had been exchanged.

Assets could be loaned (must be paid back), given, or exchanged. I'm not sure anything should be hardwired except the ability to give something to someone else. Whether an exchange is honestly conducted, or a loan is actually repaid, should be left a "soft" reality between the interlocutors.

Mickey
08-17-2005, 03:40 AM
That makes sense. What assets should be allowed to be given to another player? Just Geos? Other monetary resources (jewels, oil, etc)? Armies?

birq
08-17-2005, 03:41 AM
What assets should be allowed to be given to another player? Just Geos? Other monetary resources (jewels, oil, etc)? Armies?

All of the above! Anything that you can collect, you should be able to share.

rasqual
08-17-2005, 12:44 PM
Agreed. And I note this is in the direction of realism. ;-)

If you can, make it real. If you can't, make it good. ;-D

GeoDude
08-18-2005, 02:19 AM
I agree with birq. Anything and everything goes.

Mickey
08-18-2005, 04:06 AM
Agreed. And I note this is in the direction of realism.
I do my best to keep you happy. :)

So here's my understanding:

- Create a forum for alliances where people can talk.
- Allow people to send resources to another player.
- That's it! Nothing else - let them deal with the rest themselves.

Correct?

rasqual
08-18-2005, 04:12 AM
Sounds like a good start. Allow private messages, maybe, too. But the forum should be utterly in-world, yes. None of this chatting with sysop. Utterly diplomatic/saber-rattling/etc.

And maybe work toward armies having to move in time from one place to another -- Risk style. Dropping in from space will continue to be a bit of a fly in the ointment.

But the changes you're doing so far have been keeping everyone awfully pleased, I'd think. Your pace of substantial development is, frankly, hilarious.

I'll take this moment to, gain, say kudos. You're doing stuff with Earth that no one's done yet. You're in uncharted territory using a very cool platform. I'll continue to whine about realism, but at the same time I'll shake my head with a smile with each new feature you add.

Say, how about home bases having an AREA proportional to the number of troops in all armies? That's a bit of a change from what you're doing with cities, where you're using the vertical for numbers. I'd still like to see troop strength rather than army numbers tallied, though. I think. Hmmmm....

Mickey
08-18-2005, 04:26 AM
Sounds like a good start. Allow private messages, maybe, too. But the forum should be utterly in-world, yes. None of this chatting with sysop. Utterly diplomatic/saber-rattling/etc.
So you're saying I should spend hours creating a new system rather than using this one? Thanks. :)


And maybe work toward armies having to move in time from one place to another -- Risk style. Dropping in from space will continue to be a bit of a fly in the ointment.
That's my next major goal. I still need to think through it a bit, as it will require many changes, but it's coming.


But the changes you're doing so far have been keeping everyone awfully pleased, I'd think. Your pace of substantial development is, frankly, hilarious.
Thanks. The pace will likely slow down soon, as I have a wife, a child and a full-time job and I'm only getting about 5 hours of sleep a night (2am to 7am). I'm having so much fun, though!


I'll take this moment to, gain, say kudos. You're doing stuff with Earth that no one's done yet. You're in uncharted territory using a very cool platform. I'll continue to whine about realism, but at the same time I'll shake my head with a smile with each new feature you add.
Thanks.


Say, how about home bases having an AREA proportional to the number of troops in all armies? That's a bit of a change from what you're doing with cities, where you're using the vertical for numbers. I'd still like to see troop strength rather than army numbers tallied, though. I think. Hmmmm....
One angle I like (that I intend to expand on) is keeping the troop numbers hidden. I know that it is counter-realism in some ways, but adds a layer of strategy to the game. If you see a city with two armies, you can't be sure what you're up against until you go in and attack. Soon, I hope you'll be able to purchase spys (or something that does that type of job) to see what someone has before you attack.

If I show things based on total troops, it gives that info away and kills the whole "spy" idea.