Ceasefires

Can a limit pleased be placed on the amount of ceasefires you can have. It so irritating seeing people peace everyone.

Can anyone tell me why nobody had suggested this before?

Geschrieben von Goblin, 13.06.2015 at 14:01

Go adapt

K... I guess this is a valid response...

Idk if it has been suggested before or not, can't remember now, but yeah, that should be implemented as well... support.

Complete disagreement.

If you can't deal with the people who peace out everyone, that's nobody's fault but yours. Diplomacy is a powerful tool. I suggest you learn to use it.

Geschrieben von International, 16.06.2015 at 02:03

Complete disagreement.

If you can't deal with the people who peace out everyone, that's nobody's fault but yours. Diplomacy is a powerful tool. I suggest you learn to use it.

Dont listen to this. He comes from a world where you allyfag and sit for 30 turns doing nothing but role play and wall.

Fully support the limit to treaties that can be signed. Is like a moderate version of ally fags. This game is not where roses and daisy's blossom from your ass and you are at peace and love with everyone. Its a wonderful reality of back stabbing and shitposting.

Geschrieben von Fockmeeard, 16.06.2015 at 03:24

Geschrieben von International, 16.06.2015 at 02:03

Complete disagreement.

If you can't deal with the people who peace out everyone, that's nobody's fault but yours. Diplomacy is a powerful tool. I suggest you learn to use it.

Dont listen to this. He comes from a world where you allyfag and sit for 30 turns doing nothing but role play and wall.

Fully support the limit to treaties that can be signed. Is like a moderate version of ally fags. This game is not where roses and daisy's blossom from your ass and you are at peace and love with everyone. Its a wonderful reality of back stabbing and shitposting.

The alliance limit will serve its purpose.

If there are (for example) 3 maximum allies (I believe that's the default setting), there can be maximum four winners.
If that is not sufficient reason to back-stab your (former) friends, I don't know what is.

It is fully understood that peace treaties in excess of the alliance limit are temporary.

Geschrieben von International, 16.06.2015 at 02:03

Complete disagreement.
If you can't deal with the people who peace out everyone, that's nobody's fault but yours. Diplomacy is a powerful tool. I suggest you learn to use it.

You know how do many people use it? Ally your neighbours, peace your other neighbours except one, concentrate on that little poor and sad looser while he may be in a fight with more than one other enemies, rape him, then declare war to another guy you're at peace with and keep doing the same for the rest of the game. In this sense, yes, it's powerful, too powerful. Needs to be limited. Doesn't make any sense to peace everyone in a war game in which you'll eventually have to fight them all but you'll do it one by one.

The solution is to limit the default number of allies. Then people would actually fight more.

Geschrieben von jimmynow, 16.06.2015 at 06:03

The solution is to limit the default number of allies. Then people would actually fight more.

Doesn't work. Even when the maximum allies permited is 1, they peace everybody except one. Number of peaces should be limited as well.

Geschrieben von RaulPB, 16.06.2015 at 06:23

Doesn't work. Even when the maximum allies permited is 1, they peace everybody except one. Number of peaces should be limited as well.

Then maybe we forget the idea of peace at all...this game is called AtWAR.

Geschrieben von jimmynow, 16.06.2015 at 06:53

Then maybe we forget the idea of peace at all...this game is called AtWAR.

It's not our game so we are not responsible for those decisions XD

Geschrieben von International, 16.06.2015 at 02:03

If you can't deal with the people who peace out everyone, that's nobody's fault but yours. Diplomacy is a powerful tool. I suggest you learn to use it.

You are right there but... I don't think Diplomacy works in the same way you do...

In AtWar, the peace literally means "Hey, I cannot kill you now, so give me time". At least in most of the games I've played, people who peace each others always finish up attacking each others.... Yeah, this gives you time to prepare.

.... Of course, that was in my times. In the most recent games I've played I noticed the change, and I can assure you the logic from the last paragraph this is not the logic followed today. I found out that in our times they actually peace each others so when the game finish they can change the settings and allyend, which makes the peace feature just a way to exploit the max.alliance and "Unanimous agreement" settings.

Peace each others, kill the enemy, then allyend. Peace allows you to not kill your enemy troops and also to send him money.... and as a non premium player I don't expect from you the "They could simply lock settings" reply.

Geschrieben von RaulPB, 16.06.2015 at 05:42

Geschrieben von International, 16.06.2015 at 02:03

Complete disagreement.
If you can't deal with the people who peace out everyone, that's nobody's fault but yours. Diplomacy is a powerful tool. I suggest you learn to use it.

You know how do many people use it? Ally your neighbours, peace your other neighbours except one, concentrate on that little poor and sad looser while he may be in a fight with more than one other enemies, rape him, then declare war to another guy you're at peace with and keep doing the same for the rest of the game. In this sense, yes, it's powerful, too powerful. Needs to be limited. Doesn't make any sense to peace everyone in a war game in which you'll eventually have to fight them all but you'll do it one by one.

Except that such is exactly what everyone else is trying to do as well. Trying to fight your enemies one-by-one instead of all at once is an essential diplomatic skill that cannot be omitted in a war game.

Hitler claimed that he had an interest in "continuing Germany's traditional friendship" with the Netherlands right up to 1939, even as he was drafting invasion plans. Mussolini assured the American leadership that they were "desirous of peace" even as they invaded Ethiopia. Why do you think that is? Peace is an essential tool of any warmongerer.

Remember when I said that interpersonal diplomacy is a game skill on its own? I stick to that claim. It's a constant fight not to be the odd one out. Since the odd one out is usually the weakest, it's helpful to be strong. How do you become strong enough not to be the odd one out? Maybe if you take all those rich countries your neighbor has... Hmm...

Geschrieben von clovis1122, 16.06.2015 at 08:16

Geschrieben von International, 16.06.2015 at 02:03

If you can't deal with the people who peace out everyone, that's nobody's fault but yours. Diplomacy is a powerful tool. I suggest you learn to use it.

You are right there but... I don't think Diplomacy works in the same way you do...

In AtWar, the peace literally means "Hey, I cannot kill you now, so give me time". At least in most of the games I've played, people who peace each others always finish up attacking each others.... Yeah, this gives you time to prepare.

.... Of course, that was in my times. In the most recent games I've played I noticed the change, and I can assure you the logic from the last paragraph this is not the logic followed today. I found out that in our times they actually peace each others so when the game finish they can change the settings and allyend, which makes the peace feature just a way to exploit the max.alliance and "Unanimous agreement" settings.

Peace each others, kill the enemy, then allyend. Peace allows you to not kill your enemy troops and also to send him money.... and as a non premium player I don't expect from you the "They could simply lock settings" reply.

That is a truly excellent point. Perhaps the solution is making "locked settings" the default option. That way I don't even need to make the "simply lock the settings" argument.

Full support hate peace fagging, it should be a parameter like max number of alliances when u start a game

Geschrieben von International, 16.06.2015 at 10:19

-irrelevant shit-

This is atWar, not atPeace. Get used to having to fight more than one at the same time. You wanna use your diplomacy "skills" (clicking one button that says peace or ally), then go play RP, that's its purpose. The purpose of this game is to improve your war skills.

Raul, just ignore this troll. International is the top troll of atwar.

Ally/Peace Fagging is same difference - Option to cap number of peace treaties in game, support. Though pointless as players will still form 'secret' treaties.

Geschrieben von RaulPB, 16.06.2015 at 10:54

Geschrieben von International, 16.06.2015 at 10:19

-irrelevant shit-

This is atWar, not atPeace. Get used to having to fight more than one at the same time. You wanna use your diplomacy "skills" (clicking one button that says peace or ally), then go play RP, that's its purpose. The purpose of this game is to improve your war skills.

Hahaha fully agree

Geschrieben von International, 16.06.2015 at 02:03

If you can't deal with the people who peace out everyone, that's nobody's fault but yours. Diplomacy is a powerful tool. I suggest you learn to use it.

This Game is Called "Atwar", the clue is in the title. the "diplomacy" argument only goes so far before people realize you are just afraid to fight more than one person.

Regard your soldiers as your children, and they will follow you into the deepest valleys; look on them as your own beloved sons, and they will stand by you even unto death.
The general who advances without coveting fame and retreats without fearing disgrace, whose only thought is to protect his country and do good service for his sovereign, is the jewel of the kingdom.
It is only the enlightened ruler and the wise general who will use the highest intelligence of the army for the purposes of spying, and thereby they achieve great results.
Hence that general is skilful in attack whose opponent does not know what to defend; and he is skilful in defense whose opponent does not know what to attack.
A military operation involves deception. Even though you are competent, appear to be incompetent. Though effective, appear to be ineffective.
If our soldiers are not overburdened with money, it is not because they have a distaste for riches; if their lives are not unduly long, it is not because they are disinclined to longevity.
When envoys are sent with compliments in their mouths, it is a sign that the enemy wishes for a truce.
Can you imagine what I would do if I could do all I can?
All warfare is based on deception. There is no place where espionage is not used. Offer the enemy bait to lure him.
Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.

----

Geschrieben von clovis1122, 16.06.2015 at 08:16

Geschrieben von International, 16.06.2015 at 02:03

If you can't deal with the people who peace out everyone, that's nobody's fault but yours. Diplomacy is a powerful tool. I suggest you learn to use it.

You are right there but... I don't think Diplomacy works in the same way you do...

In AtWar, the peace literally means "Hey, I cannot kill you now, so give me time". At least in most of the games I've played, people who peace each others always finish up attacking each others.... Yeah, this gives you time to prepare.

.... Of course, that was in my times. In the most recent games I've played I noticed the change, and I can assure you the logic from the last paragraph this is not the logic followed today. I found out that in our times they actually peace each others so when the game finish they can change the settings and allyend, which makes the peace feature just a way to exploit the max.alliance and "Unanimous agreement" settings.

Peace each others, kill the enemy, then allyend. Peace allows you to not kill your enemy troops and also to send him money.... and as a non premium player I don't expect from you the "They could simply lock settings" reply.

Clovis I completely agree with you. I have always believed that if you ally someone, you stay their ally;however, if you peace someone, then that is just temporary and war will come. Sadly, as you have pointed out, more and more people are using peace treaties as a way to say they have not ally fagged even though in the end, they ally all they have peaced instead of attacking them.

Geschrieben von Fockmeeard, 16.06.2015 at 03:24

Geschrieben von International, 16.06.2015 at 02:03

Complete disagreement.

If you can't deal with the people who peace out everyone, that's nobody's fault but yours. Diplomacy is a powerful tool. I suggest you learn to use it.

Dont listen to this. He comes from a world where you allyfag and sit for 30 turns doing nothing but role play and wall.

Fully support the limit to treaties that can be signed. Is like a moderate version of ally fags. This game is not where roses and daisy's blossom from your ass and you are at peace and love with everyone. Its a wonderful reality of back stabbing and shitposting.

I support this idea, if there's max alliances, it should exist max peace aswell, to prevent allyfag or "peacefags"

Sorry for the late reply. I've been sick recently.

Geschrieben von Netre, 18.06.2015 at 18:41

Geschrieben von International, 16.06.2015 at 02:03

If you can't deal with the people who peace out everyone, that's nobody's fault but yours. Diplomacy is a powerful tool. I suggest you learn to use it.

This Game is Called "Atwar", the clue is in the title. the "diplomacy" argument only goes so far before people realize you are just afraid to fight more than one person.

Being afraid of bad things are perfectly sensible. I could argue that you're "afraid" of leaving your capital undefended for several turns while using PD, the same way you're accusing me of being afraid of fighting on many fronts, but that would be just silly. Of course you leave your capital defended. That's how you win the game.

Using the peace option increases the chance of winning and is not in violation of any rules. As such, it is a perfectly valid strategy.

The game is indeed called "atWar." But the game includes several things that are merely supporting and is not actually involved in war. Such as production. It is difficult to argue that diplomacy is less relevant to successful warfare than production is.

Geschrieben von Sun Tsu, 18.06.2015 at 11:18

Ally/Peace Fagging is same difference - Option to cap number of peace treaties in game, support. Though pointless as players will still form 'secret' treaties.

They are not the same.

There is no such thing as peace-ending and as such peace treaties have to be temporary, whereas alliances may last through the end game.

Geschrieben von RaulPB, 16.06.2015 at 10:54

Geschrieben von International, 16.06.2015 at 10:19

-irrelevant shit-

This is atWar, not atPeace. Get used to having to fight more than one at the same time. You wanna use your diplomacy "skills" (clicking one button that says peace or ally), then go play RP, that's its purpose. The purpose of this game is to improve your war skills.

From the Oxford Dictionary,
"Skill": The ability to do something well.

Therefore, war skills is the ability to conduct war well.

The generally recognized standard of "conducting war well" is military victory. Successful diplomacy results in military victories.

As such, diplomacy is a war skill.

If you don't peace, your opponent will gang on you no joke.

Geschrieben von Htin, 09.07.2015 at 16:14

If you don't peace, your opponent will gang on you no joke.

And this is a problem because...?

Geschrieben von International, 10.07.2015 at 05:07

Geschrieben von Htin, 09.07.2015 at 16:14

If you don't peace, your opponent will gang on you no joke.

And this is a problem because...?

the answer is right in that statement because 100% true all the time in FFA