Diplomacy

5) the only way an alliance or a peace can be formed is by both people sending a request On the same turn

this will mean you have to talk and negotiate your terms, meaning more lasting alliances will be created, less backstabbing.

6) if you send an alliance or peace, it costs you points regardless of it the other person accepted or not.


also, i think you should start with 15, and get 5 a turn

Geschrieben von Goblin, 08.06.2013 at 07:05

Hm ...looks like a cool idea, but secret alliances would ruin this.

Of course they would, but but of them would have to attack each other at one point anyway. ;/

Good ideas I like this point system

Very nice idea i hope they will add it soon not after a year

I prefer Desu's idea of limiting allies though.

(also, would be better if you got 20 points each reinforcement turn instead of 5 every turn)

Not "paying" (SPs) for alliance; just limit possible alliance...



And, there should be an option for "ally end". A player can choose to click (and un-click) the option of "ally end". If all players click "ally end" the game finishes. So the diplomacy map could represent 4 types of relations: (1) player in state of war (as enemy), (2) players signed peace, (3) players in aliance and (4) player willing to "ally end".

Very good idea however what about in a game when you want to ally end and you don't have enough points what then?

Well nice idea ^^

Geschrieben von Di Cappruccino, 12.06.2013 at 13:37

Very good idea however what about in a game when you want to ally end and you don't have enough points what then?

If you decide to ally end... then just make sure all the players involved in the game click "ally end" (World Peace for the sake of Humanity! huehuehue). Why would you mind the points? Like I said before: I do not support "paying" (SPs) for alliances. I think the "solution" should be based on limiting the possible alliances per player.
Still think that in a 3 player match it should be possible to make an alliance (resulting in a 2v1 situation).
Cheers,
CD

Geschrieben von Chess, 08.06.2013 at 06:48

Since I saw some people complaining about the current alliance/peace system I came up with an idea which will easily solve the problem "ally fagging" and backstabbing.

Diplomacy points

Its very simple each turn you generate a certain amount of points lets say 5 Points/Turn and lets say :

1.) an alliance with someone costs 15 points
2.) a peace treaty costs 5 points
3.) breaking a peace treaty costs 15 points
4.) breaking an alliance costs 50 Points.

EDIT: 7.) High ranks should get a lower amount of diplomacy points each turn.

Flatulence suggestions:

Geschrieben von nonames, 08.06.2013 at 06:51

5) the only way an alliance or a peace can be formed is by both people sending a request On the same turn

this will mean you have to talk and negotiate your terms, meaning more lasting alliances will be created, less backstabbing.

6) if you send an alliance or peace, it costs you points regardless of it the other person accepted or not.


also, i think you should start with 15, and get 5 a turn

Desu´s suggestion:

Geschrieben von Desu, 07.06.2013 at 21:33

We need a game option that allows you to limits allies. Say, when you make a game, have a little drop box where you can select "Limit: 2" or 1. This forces people to choose their allies carefully rather than just allying everyone in the game, not fighting anyone, then rushing some lone person who just beat everyone around them with their fresh army, and with their allies. This would fix the mass allying problem, and make prominent actual games of skill. It doesn't fix everything obviously, but it would raise the skill level slowly as well.

Columna Durruti Suggestion:

Geschrieben von Columna Durruti, 12.06.2013 at 08:44

Not "paying" (SPs) for alliance; just limit possible alliance...



And, there should be an option for "ally end". A player can choose to click (and un-click) the option of "ally end". If all players click "ally end" the game finishes. So the diplomacy map could represent 4 types of relations: (1) player in state of war (as enemy), (2) players signed peace, (3) players in aliance and (4) player willing to "ally end".

Share your thoughts on this topic and maybe bring some ideas what we could change about it or why we shouldnt implent this.

EDIT:Ally fagging and backstabbing must be prevented with this, but low ranks should still have a chance of winning through forging alliances with others.

I support chess.

Allying already seems to have quite a steep cost... I mean you're already sacrificing a good portion of the SPs you would earn if you were to win without allies. On the other hand, for people looking to increase their victory/loss ratio, "ally fagging" seems like an easy way to do this. Perhaps allied victories could be counted separately from solo victories?

That said, I was recently caught in the middle of an ally-fagging situation in an ancient world casual game. I had to ally my way out or be crushed. Some players quit (I think Columna Durruti was one of those). In the end, I had to make more alliances than I wanted (3 allies). Including with one player who was allied with almost everyone! I ended up doing most of the work towards winning the game, so the small SP reward at the end seemed frustrating. I understand that it's bad etiquette to un-ally someone (is it?), but I really felt like un-allying that player... >:(

I like the idea of when you both send ally request it means u both proably talked to each other and have come to a agreement to something.