PDA

View Full Version : Alliance revised



blitzkrieg
09-23-2005, 07:46 AM
Just to revisit the happy arena of alliances, I was having a bit more of a think about the setup and would like to restate my preferred way (with thanks to rasqual for the backup).

Alliances are dealt with on a case by case basis. I believe everybody who starts the game should start with non aggression pacts to everybody else -WITH- (here's amendment 1) a 1 week time limit. Every new status could have a time limit - someone offers you a city for free for a 1 week ceasefire. After the ceasefire you are free to return to a state of war without damaging your international reputation (amendment 2) or upgrade to a peace policy which has no time limit but needs a 24 hour notice to break (admendment 3).

The breaking of a treaty or pact is possible within the time limit but at a cost of reputation points (which could also be timed to return to zero after a certain amount of time (1 month, 2 weeks from the infraction))

A mutual defence treaty would be the step up above peace and could be intergrated that once someone attacks one of your cities, you and the other pactee become instantly status changed to at "war" with the attacker. In the case of two mutual defense allies attacking each other the aggressor defaults as the enemy.

There could be time limits on each change of state, war to ceasefire can be upgraded to peace after a 24 hour timer then mutual defence after another 24 etc. Makes you choose allies wisely as they could get you in hot water if they are aggressive.

The highest state would be ally and would have more benefits, ie. you could camp an army INSIDE the city of an ally for city defensive purposes, you could recruit troops at ally cities (though this still has certain unrealistic aspects, but it could be a game situation) and more that I can't think of.

Depositting money into other peoples accounts should still be possible to anyone, as the issue of "covert operations" using a "peace" status user to attack someone you want brought down to size without fullscale war.

Thoughts appreciated, I'm not a good writer (I lift heavy things) and basically got lost half way through that novel up there, so feel free to pick and add where necessary

blitzkrieg
09-23-2005, 08:06 AM
I've just been to the toilet and I feel a lot lighter so now to clarify some of above..


1. The Reason for time limits to go to war would be to give the war-ee time to respond to the war-er in dialogue or just collect jewels like mad to build up defenses - and attacking without warning "outrages" the global community.

2. You can go from ceasefire and peace to war but not mutual defense and ally (should hold back a little backstabbing, we don't know each other in real life), you need to first give notice of a status change to peace.

3. Mutual defense treaties: In the event of an attack on your MD ally, you are given a communication box of whether to change status with attacker to "war" or leave as is. If you choose to leave as is, you gain bad reputation and MDT is reverted to "peace" treaty with other party. In the case of two MDTs attacking each other, you have the right to stay neutral and both revert to peace until conflict is over (than manually can be changed back) or side with one MDT ally and not lose reputation for breaking the other MDT (you had no choice)

4. Bad Reputation points can be played that 0 means good reputation and you get 5 for breaking a peace treaty with an attack, 5 for breaking a ceasefire with notice and 10 for breaking ceasefire without notice (as they are a 1 week contract) and maybe 2 for not honouring a mutual defense treaty. one point can be deducted per day at either 24:00 hours by Mickey's clock or at the 24hr anniversary of the MOST CURRENT reputation infraction.

5. My head hurts again.

Blitzkrieg

blitzkrieg
09-23-2005, 08:29 AM
6. All newcomers get ceasefire agreements for first week with everybody to help them get started, they can occupy vacant cities but can't attack or be attacked without either losing reputation, during a post war ceasefire, you can select a box which will revert the status to "war" otherwise it will default to peace after the 1 week, or can be done simply if both parties check a "peace" box during ceasefire

7. Statuses are;

1. War
2. Ceasefire
3. Peace
4. Mutual defense treaty
5. Alliance

8. My head still hurts.


Blitzkrieg

blitzkrieg
09-23-2005, 08:59 AM
9. MDT clarification: if a MDT ally attacks someone, you are not obliged by the treaty to help them (probably should go through proper diplomatic channels to declare war on them still, aswell, but not necessarily) as it is not a defensive situation. That would be one condition of an alliance though, whoever they are at war with, you are at war with.

Timmetie
09-23-2005, 09:57 AM
i'm sorry i didn't catch that?

could you please repeat?

War_Peace
09-23-2005, 09:58 AM
i'm sorry i didn't catch that?

could you please repeat?

:lol: :rofl: God **** it guys, stop this at once...

TheMightySquigglies
09-23-2005, 10:05 AM
I'm not ashamed to say that I understood none of that except the title.

Beezer
09-23-2005, 12:36 PM
I've just been to the toilet and I feel a lot lighter so now to clarify some of above..

Where's the "laughing so hard I cried and wet my pants" smiley when you need it??

Some good suggestions. Mickey may have a stroke when he sees this though.

Mickey
09-23-2005, 12:59 PM
Some good suggestions.
Agreed.


Mickey may have a stroke when he sees this though.
Pretty much.

birq
09-23-2005, 02:58 PM
I just don't get it. Why can't all this just be handled through forums and private messages rather than in code? Have you guys ever played Odd Man In (http://www.bengarvey.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=oddeven&file=index)? Alliances and teamwork are the heart of the game, but so are treason and backstabbing, and it's all handled through private and public messages and is allowed to flow freely without anything being handled in code. Don't hard-code any of the diplomacy (or lack thereof) -- let it flow like in the real world.

Timmetie
09-23-2005, 03:13 PM
agreed, it gives tactical depth

blitzkrieg
09-25-2005, 02:50 PM
Is that really that hard to understand? I am not a author of any regard and I re-read it all before I posted and it made sense to me.... but then I'm preaching to myself as a convert.

I do still like the idea of it and think that just the addition of the reputation points would add realism, plus give a defender a more realistic chance of setting up some defences (in real life you tend not to suddenly have an army at your doorstep banging your door down). Also noobs get a bit of an idea wo to trust early on, or who to approach if they like to play that way themselves.

Anybody want to comment? I'm sure there are some holes that could be exploited or loops that could be used, or some other major inconsistency that can pop up by this system, but I can't see them? Can anybody find anything negative about it?

Mickey, is this really hard to implement if agreed to? I would assume on each person's alliance status page, it wouldn't show peace treaties as, for most people, they would make up over 95% of all treaties. Just show war, cease,mdt and allies.

rasqual
09-25-2005, 08:03 PM
There's definitely some merit in the idea of "reputation points"

There's some stuff about this game that will always be unrealistic, and one of these things is that players will always be dropping in from space. People who know NOTHING of the game, and about whom players of the game know nothing. And that's utterly unrealistic, and there's utterly nothing that can be done about it.

In theory, they could be expected to "lurk" a while before participating; in fact, Mickey, you could implement that after account creation, and see to it that cookies show they're not idle in the information-parsing department. Whatever.

But in order to better acquaint noobs with the other players, something like a "reputation" tag for players isn't at all an outlandish notion. If you want outlandish, check out "geek" tags. ;-)

I think this recommendation should be taken under advisement. If not implemented as suggested, the value in the proposition should at least be considered when implementing other features that implicate the ignorance of newbies. I don't think the game should bear the burden of relieving noobs of doing their due diligence, but heck, even for veteran players a "reputation code" could be handy. And there may be things Mickey would want to regulate with it, down the road (citizens of a city who've been razed by someone's armies might lose heart if their occupiers form an alliance with that dreaded party, for example).

I'd add that it might be interesting if reputations were auditably traceable to their sources.

blitzkrieg
09-26-2005, 06:30 AM
I'm just trying to work out in my head whether changing the alliance system would actually change in the current state of the game?

A quick check by me with a calculator showed that of the 175 cities available, 151 are owned by a group or individual that, if you read the forum and even slightly investigated the game, you wouldn't dare to attack because of the repercussions.

What the burning question here is whether changing the system would make the world seem more accessible or would it basically be the same but a little harder to read.

At first I turned down an offer to join NA because I didn't want to be in an alliance but when the visible alliances came in I was able to see how the world really was operating, I saw that it was necessary for my survival (plus we had a common goal). I guess strength in numbers will always play a part in this game as will common goals, but I think it has maybe gone to far with the current city : alliance ratio status. The world needs conflicts.


I'm not ashamed to say that I understood none of that except the title.

Are you serious?

You started a thread that blasted the NA for existing, but now you dismiss a chance at changing the system for the betterment of the game?

Read it again and tinker with what doesn't make sense to you.

********

I would like the current system changed because of the 175/151 problem we are facing, either that or world war (whatever we're up to now). Think of the future of the game, not the current alliance statuses you're in. Remember this is BETA still, lets get it right.

Of course I might be missing the point, let me know.

Blitzkrieg

blitzkrieg
09-26-2005, 01:07 PM
I just had another thought to halt the possibility of one attack launching the whole word into war, if a mdt ally has war declared on him therefore forcing you to war aswell, any mdt allies who are not common allies with the one being attacked are under no obligation to also declare war......


eg. Person 1 (P1) has MDT with P2. P2 also has MDT with P1 and P3. P4 attacks P1. P2 has to declare war on P4 by the terms of the MDT, but this makes P2 an aggressor so P3 has no obligation to declare war on P4.

(Did that make it easier or harder)

Blitzkrieg

TheMightySquigglies
09-26-2005, 01:25 PM
Yeah I get it now, re-read it and I think I must have been asleep before.

Good concept, how hard would it be to code though?

anthonywitt
09-27-2005, 06:35 AM
I just had another thought to halt the possibility of one attack launching the whole word into war, if a mdt ally has war declared on him therefore forcing you to war aswell, any mdt allies who are not common allies with the one being attacked are under no obligation to also declare war......


eg. Person 1 (P1) has MDT with P2. P2 also has MDT with P1 and P3. P4 attacks P1. P2 has to declare war on P4 by the terms of the MDT, but this makes P2 an aggressor so P3 has no obligation to declare war on P4.

(Did that make it easier or harder)

BlitzkriegI like it and it makes sence. The world will be at peice.
Question; What if NP (new peson) joins PI but does not know that P1 has a MDT with P2 and the NP attacks P3 not knowing that p3 has a MDT with P1 and P2. P14 sees that NP attacks P3. P14 is told by P22 that P1 never told NP that there was a MDT between P1, P2 and P3. Who would be held accountable?

blitzkrieg
09-27-2005, 10:11 AM
I like it and it makes sence. The world will be at peice.
Question; What if NP (new peson) joins PI but does not know that P1 has a MDT with P2 and the NP attacks P3 not knowing that p3 has a MDT with P1 and P2. P14 sees that NP attacks P3. P14 is told by P22 that P1 never told NP that there was a MDT between P1, P2 and P3. Who would be held accountable?

The world will not all be at peace.

The onus would be on NP to find out who has an alliance or MDT with P3 before attacking so as not to stir up more of a hornet's nest than he can handle. Thats why every player should have a visible alliance page showing all statuses with other players that are not peace (hopefully won't be all that many). Under this situation with NP being the aggressor, P2 would have to declare war on NP (by terms of MDT) and P1 can either help P3 or remain neutral (decision box is needed) without losing reputation, if he sides with NP he breaks MDT with P3 as NP is the aggressor.

P14 and P22? They're just along for the ride.

NP's mistake. Through diplomacy, the can reach an agreement, call a ceasefire and then call a peace treaty within hours, or P3 wipes his sorry behind from the map.

I'd love to hear some more examples, I really reckon its a better system but can certainly understand there wil be difficulties implementing it (code and all).

blitzkrieg
10-02-2005, 08:33 AM
*Bump*

Also Mickey, if you don't like it could you please knock it on the head for me so I don't spend endless nights wondering about what could have been???

brodie2219
10-02-2005, 11:45 PM
diplomecy is cool idea, so the long and short of it, you would need to declare war prior to attacking, offering the people the option of surrendering the city peacefully or fighting. If you just attack a city out of the blue you would face economic "sanctions" and anger alot of people. That would be pretty cool.

Lukepuuk
10-03-2005, 12:20 AM
cool yes...but how could the newbies still get in?
And ofcourse it is a wargame eh ;)
Though I like the idea, I think it will cause for some problems.
My guess is if this just keeps going, an authority will automatically form to keep people from getting too big or going for war too much.