Alliances

OK.
Here is the thing, that kept bugging me for some time, now I, finally, able to put it in words

First of all, who thinks, that this is interesting game?
[url]http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/3083/ally.jpg[url]

Basically I am 2 turns from defeat, if Blue and Green got allied - Game over for everyone.

Now I am not whining about everyone whiping me off map, even more I am sure, that everyone must solve his own problems, but out of this rise this problem
Green think it is better to ally with red and whipe weak ones off, same think blue....e t.c.
One propose, other accepts without any evaluation.

So main thing is this:
Maybe it is time to change something? I, personally have 2 thoughts about this.
1. One can enter the alliance only with all allied people - it makes sence. We got 3 ally chain. 1 is friends with 2 others fighting - ridiculous.
2. And more important - you should restrict ally bindings, based on people in game.
up to 5 - 2 bind
10 - 3
15 - 4 for example
This restrictions will make people think about entering one.
And it is worth to add Diplomacy screen into ally agree/deny screen.

Your thoughts are more than welcome

From what I understand, what you suggest here is already available when playing team games.
If we are to impose these limitations on alliances, then they won't make much difference from teams.
Besides, you cannot make people not to ally. If there will be a restriction for max. allies, they will just make mutual (hidden) alliances.

Actually, you are right, but this concerns only p.2
How about p.1?

If I enter an ally, I am automatically become ally with all, who already in, for example in picture provided, blue should be in ally with all, except orange (me).
That will force game end, then I am killed, and some fellas will actually think if they want this to happen (End Game that is).

作者： Cardinal, 04.01.2011 at 08:07

Actually, you are right, but this concerns only p.2
How about p.1?

If I enter an ally, I am automatically become ally with all, who already in, for example in picture provided, blue should be in ally with all, except orange (me).
That will force game end, then I am killed, and some fellas will actually think if they want this to happen (End Game that is).

I think it's better to be able to choose your allies yourself, and not no "inherit" others' allies. Just like in the real world

I think optional allying is fine, but I do think that the system for assigning teams in team games is flawed... I think that you should be forced to join weaker teams (or atleast, not the strongest) unless the SP variations are minimal (ie. top team has only obtaines 1.1 times the SP of the next weaker team, and so on).

作者： FailureFace, 04.01.2011 at 11:34

I think optional allying is fine, but I do think that the system for assigning teams in team games is flawed... I think that you should be forced to join weaker teams (or atleast, not the strongest) unless the SP variations are minimal (ie. top team has only obtaines 1.1 times the SP of the next weaker team, and so on).

Agreed. The teams that are available to join should be based on Team Total SP and/or Team Total Units rather than number of players per team.

I have played team games where 1 player was clearly dominating against 2 teams. However, since both those teams had 2 players each and the dominating player has no allies, all new joiners join the winning team. Would be much more interesting to see the new joiners join the teams that actually need the help.

Only drawback to that is that since this guy is already playing one against 4, one or two late joiners on each of the new teams will easily flip the balance of power. Maybe in team games since you are spawning with allies already on the field, the bonus recruitment u get as a late joiner should be turned down some?

作者： Amok, 04.01.2011 at 08:57

作者： Cardinal, 04.01.2011 at 08:07

Actually, you are right, but this concerns only p.2
How about p.1?

If I enter an ally, I am automatically become ally with all, who already in, for example in picture provided, blue should be in ally with all, except orange (me).
That will force game end, then I am killed, and some fellas will actually think if they want this to happen (End Game that is).

I think it's better to be able to choose your allies yourself, and not no "inherit" others' allies. Just like in the real world

There is your mistake.
In a real world you can't create such ally.
For example USA got allied with UK, but UK is allied with Russia, with whom USA in a strong confrontation.
Now can you imagine, that USA will help UK and it is very possible, that this help could end up in Russia

作者： Cardinal, 05.01.2011 at 00:50

There is your mistake.
In a real world you can't create such ally.
For example USA got allied with UK, but UK is allied with Russia, with whom USA in a strong confrontation.
Now can you imagine, that USA will help UK and it is very possible, that this help could end up in Russia

In that case, the US shouldn't have allied with the UK in the first place. I, myself, like the idea that you can pick your friends / enemies, regardless of their own relations.

This approach will lead me to my starting point
I think that currently alliances are uninteresting part of a game, it's a non-aggression statement and nothing more as described in Diplomacy topic

作者： Cardinal, 05.01.2011 at 04:22

This approach will lead me to my starting point
I think that currently alliances are uninteresting part of a game, it's a non-aggression statement and nothing more as described in Diplomacy topic

Actually, we've come out with an interesting idea on how to add some weight to alliances. There will be the so-called "alliance breaking penalty" which you will be able to set when you request an alliance. This penalty will be deducted from whoever decides to break it.

作者： Amok, 05.01.2011 at 04:34

作者： Cardinal, 05.01.2011 at 04:22

This approach will lead me to my starting point
I think that currently alliances are uninteresting part of a game, it's a non-aggression statement and nothing more as described in Diplomacy topic

Actually, we've come out with an interesting idea on how to add some weight to alliances. There will be the so-called "alliance breaking penalty" which you will be able to set when you request an alliance. This penalty will be deducted from whoever decides to break it.

That won't change anything. Nobody breaks alliances. I've seen it maybe once or twice, as where alliance spam happens every game. Even in games that go to the turn limit (and only the person with the highest SP wins) the allies don't tend to break off. Basically setting a limit to the number of alliances a player can make (which could be set as a alterable option, like the turn limit), would allow for more dynamic game play than team games (where alliances are locked, even if you get stuck with crappy allies who don't do anything/leave), as well as preventing everybody from allying with everybody in the first turn. I think locked teams and the unlimited alliance options should still be available, just adding this as another option.

作者： Calber, 05.01.2011 at 11:16

That won't change anything. Nobody breaks alliances. I've seen it maybe once or twice

A LOT of people break alliances. True, this number decreased lately, it was higher not so long ago, but it's still high. Browse Afterwind forum; the topic of permament alliances and alliance braking players was very hot not long ago.

Akuku I couldn't find the topic in the forums you were talking about... maybe it was deleted? :\
In any case, I'm talking from my own experience, players don't tend to break alliances, and when they do it's usually a minor thing, not a game changer. I guess my main point is we shouldn't be looking for ways to make alliances more stable. This is a game about war and strategy, if there's no disincentives to making alliances it just becomes a game about who has more allies, which makes for rather boring gameplay. Team games do solve this problem by making the teams roughly equivalent, but at the same time it changes the strategy. You know exactly who your friends and enemies are. A lot of the fun in non-team games is trying to coordinate (or manipulate) other players to gain the upper hand. And with the current alliance system, the best way to do that is by making alliances with everybody you don't want to fight.

To put it mathematically:
Alliances = Less Chaos and War
Chaos and War = Fun
Therefore, Less Alliances=More Fun
Conversely, More Alliances=Less Fun

Um, i did not talk about exact topic about alliance breaking, it was a subject of at least few suggestions, many shouts in the shoutbox, and many posts in various topics. A lot of people asked for things like permanent alliances and similiar. It was mostly right before introduction of team games. Breaking an alliance was mostly about backstabbing people to gain their territory: your ally groups his units not far from your capital when you are busy fighting someone, then he brakes an alliance and attacks you. Now it's harder to such surprise attack because games are by default winned by capturing AND holding a city for a number of turn, before you needed only to capture the capital.

People who play this game for a long time tend care about their reputation, so it's rare to find any backstabbers with higher rank, people who backstab are more offten players with lower rank. High ranked player is today experinced enough to defend himself from being betrayed, and backstabber loses in the counterattack. If it's a new player who is betrayed, he becomes frustrated and leaves the game .

some alliances = good
many alliances = bad and boring
battles = FUN

引句:

This is a game about war and strategy, if there's no disincentives to making alliances it just becomes a game about who has more allies, which makes for rather boring gameplay

Those are golden words.
Whole my idea in 1 sentence

Mabey we should introduce a setting where there can only be a certain number of players leving a game decided on at the beginning

Probably not the place to bring this up, but it is related...

With teams, etc. a way to pass on your empire to a new player would be nice, rather than just leaving the units scattered about as neutral.

Hopefully this would reduce 'unfairness' when people as part of a team leave suddenly/disconnect handing their (permanent) alies over to the enemy.

Incase this isn't perfectly clear, I'm NOT saying that it should be possible to 'trade' countries/citie in game. Sharing unit (or control of units) ie. being able to leave your friend in control of troops to the east, while you maintain the situation in the west, would be nice though. Maybe even a 'communist' strategy to allow such (multi)nationalistion!

Long term stuff, probably, if anything.

Bump
This is really bugs me
So my proposion stands

引句:

1. One can enter the alliance only with all allied people - it makes sence. We got 3 ally chain. 1 is friends with 2 others fighting - ridiculous.

作者： Cardinal, 21.01.2011 at 07:35

Bump
This is really bugs me
So my proposion stands

引句:

1. One can enter the alliance only with all allied people - it makes sence. We got 3 ally chain. 1 is friends with 2 others fighting - ridiculous.

Not going to happen, sorry. We're not going to dictate to people what kind of diplomatic state they should be with someone.

We will, however, impose some penalties on having too many alliances, and possibly on breaking alliances.

The situation IS lifelike:

The US has been trying to negotiate peace between the Israelis and Palestinians for YEARS, while supporting BOTH.

作者： n00less cluebie, 26.01.2011 at 09:12

The situation IS lifelike:

The US has been trying to negotiate peace between the Israelis and Palestinians for YEARS, while supporting BOTH.

Depends on how you define support:
For Israel - Give them $1 billion a year to buy the best military hardware available.
For Palestine - Pat them on the back and tell them, "Yeah, we're with you and we are really trying hard to get peace. Gee, we're real sorry that you can't build houses because concrete shipments are forbidden and your land keeps being taken and you don't have enough electricity and food, but that's just tough luck. But we're behind you 100%."

Come on this is not that place to talk about that.

Just for getting back to the initial topic :

It's a good idea if we can see the diplomatic tab when peace or alliance request are sent.In most games, you didn't really know who is with who in the beginning.

This is very interesting.

作者： pacobell4life, 03.02.2014 at 00:02

This is very interesting.

3 Years old topic. Please don't be like Death.

We have updated discussions about it and a maximum number of alliances was already added in game options.

Locked.