Alliances

Mickey · 08-17-2005, 01:41 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, 01:59 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, 03:56 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, 04:36 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, 04:40 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, 04:41 AM

Quote:

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, 01:44 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, 03:19 AM

I agree with birq. Anything and everything goes.

Mickey · 08-18-2005, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rasqual

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, 05:12 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, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rasqual

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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!

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

08-17-2005, 01:41 AM	#1
Mickey Administrator Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 2,328	Alliances 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.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-17-2005, 01:59 AM	#2
birq Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 296	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.

08-17-2005, 03:56 AM	#3
GeoDude Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 6	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.

08-17-2005, 04:36 AM	#4
rasqual Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 459	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.

08-17-2005, 04:40 AM	#5
Mickey Administrator Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 2,328	That makes sense. What assets should be allowed to be given to another player? Just Geos? Other monetary resources (jewels, oil, etc)? Armies?

08-17-2005, 01:44 PM	#7
rasqual Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 459	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

08-18-2005, 03:19 AM	#8
GeoDude Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 6	I agree with birq. Anything and everything goes.

08-18-2005, 05:12 AM	#10
rasqual Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 459	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....