Smaller Ally Limit

We all know the dangers of Ally #$%s that ruin your game. How many allies do you think we should set as the standard. Putting into account ally ends and game play I'm sure we will come up with a happy medium although I strongly believe we should win games with the least allies as possible. REMINDER: Backstabbing is cheap.

Wait Limit or default? Maybe I need to change my answer. I was thinking default.

It was default.

----

0 allies default sounds ideal. Of course, everything should be a possible option.

I find it funny that the answer: "Unlimited (Dumbest Answer)" got the most votes Though I'm against unlimited, I'm also against 0 and 1. 2 might be plausible.
2 might be a good default, while having the option to go way up or way down from there.

I think that 1 ally would be best. But, players could just peace everyone

Geschrieben von Guest, 05.07.2015 at 08:35

I think that 1 ally would be best. But, players could just peace everyone

But then they'd have to break some peace sometime. I think it would be a Better game.

What would really be cool would be to not allow ally with anyone in your continent. At least in world games.

Geschrieben von jimmynow, 05.07.2015 at 09:42

Geschrieben von Guest, 05.07.2015 at 08:35

What would really be cool would be to not allow ally with anyone in your continent. At least in world games.

That would be great. But I think that would be a little hard to add, and then players would request for it to be on other maps too, and blah blah blah

Geschrieben von jimmynow, 05.07.2015 at 09:42

Geschrieben von Guest, 05.07.2015 at 08:35

I think that 1 ally would be best. But, players could just peace everyone

But then they'd have to break some peace sometime. I think it would be a Better game.

What would really be cool would be to not allow ally with anyone in your continent. At least in world games.

Define "same continent" in a way that is meaningful enough for this to work.

Geschrieben von International, 30.06.2015 at 14:21

0 allies default sounds ideal. Of course, everything should be a possible option.

We should have the ability to make choices but the game should allow no alliances at the start and the players should decide whether to keep the FFA an FFA. Diplomacy is trivial as one alone should be able to live and reign and conquer the world without the support of others.

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 Diedra, 07.07.2015 at 21:11

-snip-

Are you intoxicated, by any chance? Too much narcotics?

Geschrieben von International, 08.07.2015 at 10:32

Geschrieben von Diedra, 07.07.2015 at 21:11

-snip-

Are you intoxicated, by any chance? Too much narcotics?

No, I'm just stating the psychology of many noobs. FFA is the only way to get ahead in this game. True, we should have choices. Stating and reviewing the facts of my research, we should not have 3 v 1 ally webs. The game should have a balancing element or else players gang up on you. Like if there are 4 players, you should not be allowed to ally more than one other player. That is ideal.

Geschrieben von Diedra, 08.07.2015 at 11:15

Geschrieben von International, 08.07.2015 at 10:32

Geschrieben von Diedra, 07.07.2015 at 21:11

-snip-

Are you intoxicated, by any chance? Too much narcotics?

No, I'm just stating the psychology of many noobs. FFA is the only way to get ahead in this game. True, we should have choices. Stating and reviewing the facts of my research, we should not have 3 v 1 ally webs. The game should have a balancing element or else players gang up on you. Like if there are 4 players, you should not be allowed to ally more than one other player. That is ideal.

So... why quote me?

I agree with you, you know, but it's still a little odd.

Geschrieben von International, 08.07.2015 at 11:21

Geschrieben von Diedra, 08.07.2015 at 11:15

Geschrieben von International, 08.07.2015 at 10:32

Geschrieben von Diedra, 07.07.2015 at 21:11

-snip-

Are you intoxicated, by any chance? Too much narcotics?

No, I'm just stating the psychology of many noobs. FFA is the only way to get ahead in this game. True, we should have choices. Stating and reviewing the facts of my research, we should not have 3 v 1 ally webs. The game should have a balancing element or else players gang up on you. Like if there are 4 players, you should not be allowed to ally more than one other player. That is ideal.

So... why quote me?

I agree with you, you know, but it's still a little odd.

No question is ever a bad question. I quote you to show another like minded response.