Diplomacy

Written by Yihka, 11.01.2011 at 14:54

Peace should be the same as war, apart from that you can't attack nor see their units.

Alliance should allow you to stack units in your friends cities and able to see their units.



If you break an alliance, it should take 3-5 turns of "peace", before you can go in war with eachother.

I like the idea of knowing when a new turn starts that my ally has a new enemy and that I can choose to go in war with that guy too or just ignore it.

ok I want to point out 2 things here.. one
"Alliance should allow you to stack units in your friends cities and able to see their units."
AWESOME idea.. this would allow players to play more as a team... and would help when defending against a bigger front..

and two
"If you break an alliance, it should take 3-5 turns of "peace", before you can go in war with eachother."
these are just setting that can be set before the game starts.. and the admin could see how people react to it do they even use it or do they like the old way better.

Idk about the second one, but i agree with the first one. We should be able to stack our units in allies caps. I want to defend my allies against our enemies.

I definitely agree about allied defense. Allied troops should be able to reinforce cities and build defense lines between 2 nearby units. I can't count the times I could see an attack force heading for my ally's capital and I have the capacity to airlift tons of infantry or militia there, but once they got there they'd be forced to either attack, or form a defense line which would take an extra turn. And if the alliance is broken, then the units are kicked out next turn just like if 2 factions attack the same city.
I feel that reinforcing cities is a pretty reasonable advantage that can be used but not really abused. Other allied actions like sharing transports or gifting units or territories would be rife with cheese plays, while allied garrisons would give a slight advantage to players who are already on the defensive.

Written by Tommchen, 03.01.2011 at 09:35

There have been some remarks concerning alliances, but I have a bigger problem: Those alliances don't really mean anything. They are more something as a Non-Agrassion Pacts

So I suggest the following:

1. Everybody starts neutral (= what is called peace now)
=> So you have to declare war before you can attack.

2. Being Ally with someone really means something.
=> If you are being attacked, your allies automatically will be in war with your attacker
=> If you declare war on someone, your allies will be asked:
[ ] Keep Alliance (and declare war on...)
[ ] End Alliance (an become neutral with...)

3. And of course you can still offer peace when your ass is being kicked

I love all ideas, 1 2 and 3... I also read something in there ^^ about war proposals; I like that idea also.

Written by specter, 04.01.2011 at 19:17

Lol! Sounds good to me the only thing i can think of (right now) is that with tommechen importance of alliance idea is that the other players shouldn't have the option of knowing if their opponent's alliance is just a stronger non-aggression pact or a one for all deal. For me alliance can vary between i am willing to walk out of the game with you to i am pretty sure you would attack me if we had peace, which in this game is more like a cease fire than peace.

Summary add in game advanced diplomacy that after alliance has been signed can have a super alliance.
P.S. most likely one should actually talk to the person you are signing super alliance with. Some people on here who have offered alliances never talk.

I dont think it should be an option to be in a "super alliance" with somebody. If you never talk to your ally or feel that they are going to back-stab you, then you shouldnt be allies in the first place. If your an ally with someone, that means that you should be ready to help them at all costs. Most of the time in this game, "alliances" are more like non-aggression pacts. I think that we should make alliances for those that truly trust each other and want to fight to the end with each other and for all those people that spam alliances in the begining, there could be a non-aggression pact option.

I like all three proposed ideas, it makes alliances worthwhile, not just a ceasefire.

Perhaps just a game setup option regarding default player relations?

Easy enough to implement I would imagine, and does the job. I wouldn't advocate 'Super Alliances' and such, Team games were added for a (number of) reason(s).

Allied Stacks would definatly improve defence greatly.

If you could stack defenses,you would also have to make an option to let allies attack together without destroying each other.

Written by Smaby, 05.06.2011 at 18:23

If you could stack defenses,you would also have to make an option to let allies attack together without destroying each other.

That is allready in place.

I would like to help my allies when they're being attacked, great Idea.

Alliances

A three-tier system could be introduced, consisting of;

Pact - The 'superalliance', enabling players to place units in each other's cities, build defence lines with one another (i.e. player 1's unit forms line with player's 2 unit) while taking 3 turns of demotion to Non-Aggression and then Peace before outright war can be declared. An attack against one member of the Pact is an attack against all, meaning all players in the Pact enter hostilities with a player who is at war with one member; however, the Peace and Non-Aggression features are not affected under this principle, meaning player 1 can be in Peace with player 3 but player 2 can still be invading 3. Units could also be transferred between players using the current system alliance/peace is offered. After clicking a box in 'Diplomacy' marked, say, 'Transfer Unit', the player highlights and clicks the unit to be transferred. This offers potential both for better co-operation and strategy but also immense backstabbing by players who want to kill people they're in Peace/Non-Aggression with but don't want the predictability of the current set-up (i.e. 'Player 1 has ended the Alliance with you! Quick, stack defence!').
Non-Aggression - The current Alliance feature.
Peace (could be renamed Ceasefire/Armistice?) - The current Peace feature.

Written by Hotshot, 28.03.2011 at 03:21

I dont think it should be an option to be in a "super alliance" with somebody. If you never talk to your ally or feel that they are going to back-stab you, then you shouldnt be allies in the first place. If your an ally with someone, that means that you should be ready to help them at all costs. Most of the time in this game, "alliances" are more like non-aggression pacts. I think that we should make alliances for those that truly trust each other and want to fight to the end with each other and for all those people that spam alliances in the begining, there could be a non-aggression pact option.

I partly agree. but i disagree with the non-agression pact. Why:
-on one side the game has to stay simple to not to litteraly scare away newbies
-don´t forget that afterwind is based on strategic movements and about war rather than diplomaticy. it would totally change the game.

btw. all the alliance-spamers in the first turn, will in the end gain way less sp than someone who fought against 3 allied people during the same time because they will have to share your sp.
But sure there are cases in which an alliance is the best choice but then you shouldn´t be able to "force" another player into an superalliance, its his choice and it makes the game more realistic. thats where i agree with hotshot: choose your allies carefully and be suspicious!

I think the "Diplomacy" idea is brilliant, I hope the game's programmers take it to consideration. I have been hoping for something similar to be added to the game, it will give it a more realistic feel.

I like the non aggression pact, ceasefire, and alliance idea ncm is proposing to certain extent (what we call them is also not important) ... I think it helps to know whether you are permanent alliance or something... Civ also hd something called a vassal state... which is something interesting... but could be very bad experience for new comers...

Two things

1. Going to war can be very expencive in some cases

2. You might already be fighting somebody else

making even more war would not work.

Ofcourse if your Ally goes in to war , you could have a choice :
Join War
Stay out of war

Written by Sylinic, 06.12.2011 at 09:24

Ofcourse if your Ally goes in to war , you could have a choice :
Join War
Stay out of war

Sure, but you should get this option to turn this off in the game settings, I can see many people not liking it. It would just lead to a massive free-for-all and a lot of frustration.

In my mind, this would only work well if you had to state a casus belli, though the game mechanics are too shallow for such a thing yet (which is not a bad thing, I like its focus on warfare).

The Stupid thing is

I've seen players suggesting to ally with someone to get closer to their capital and capture it.
...And that's lame.

There should be some drawback to breaking truce.
I think Europa Universalis solved this quite well with the casus belli/truce mechanics that don't apply here.

Anyway the point is: it needs a drawback.
Maybe alliances could be temporary and need constant "money" investment and give a monetary/movement penalty to whoever breaks them.

I think it should cost SP when:
1. you break peace or an alliance
2. you refuse to join a war when someone declares war upon your ally, but not when your ally declared the war


this should improve team play and avoid ppl from suddenly breaking alliances and all attack one player
also you would have to think more carefully about whom you want to ally with...

Edit+
an alliance should generate some money (like a trade agreement) but when you break the alliance there should be penalties regarding morale, perhaps an attack/defence dissadvantage
and cities with slightly reduced income for a few turns

Because now all u have to do to become an enemy instead of a friend is wait 2 turns and no dissadvantages whatsoever.

But about 3-5 peace turns, a extra rule: the peace or alliance cant be disable if your ally have troops on one of your countries

Written by Mr House, 16.02.2012 at 20:08

But about 3-5 peace turns, a extra rule: the peace or alliance cant be disable if your ally have troops on one of your countries

Would make mad a lot of backstabbers but it could also be an advantage for the player whom had war declared on. Also could prevent stealth attacks after war declared. (depending if walled/not walled and range.)

There should be a permant alliance button also to know ur True enemys

Written by Guest, 27.03.2012 at 16:34

There should be a permant alliance button also to know ur True enemys

Yes but what if one of your allies is attacking one of your weaker allies and you can't stand to see him/her die because you didn't help?

"2. Being Ally with someone really means something."
That's for the players to decide.... Amok can't script rationality.

I support the 2nd point, but the first sounds kinda odd.
I have thought of a permanent ally button, since many would just declare war after u had battles and weakened, just to have ur sp, but this would kinda be inconsistent with the 2nd point.

I absolutely hate the idea of punishments for people who break alliances. Do not get me wrong...I dislike ally traitors just as much as the next guy...but it is a part of the game. Alliances have been broken throughout history, and they will continue to be broken in the game. On the other hand...I do find the idea of a three tier system very interesting. Here is what I propose, and I only skimmed the post, so I apologize if someone has already proposed this:

1) Peace: default setting for everyone to start with at the beginning of the game. This would take care of first turn attackers which so many players complain about.

2) Alliance: current alliance system where you would go to peace the following turn if broken.

3) Pact: A pact is a binding agreement between 2-6(or whatever if agreed upon) nations. To create a pact, a nation must pay 500 gold. Once created, a nation can invite other players to the pact. In order to join the pact, a player must pay 100 gold.(You can take out the payments if you want. I just decided I would throw it out there as a suggestion.) War on a single nation in the pact mans war against the entire pact. If one player decides to declare war on somebody in the pact, he will automatically be at war with everyone member of the pact. If a player within the pact decides to declare war on another pact member, he will enter war with the entire pact. Pact winning would replace ally winning.

Well, that is just my input. Feel free to criticize and make comments as you wish.

Perhaps if each player was assigned a score much like Rep. A trust rating or something. And it decreases everytime you break an alliance. I also think its a good idea for there to be an SP penalty if you break an alliance

Written by KyleTheHouseCat, 23.04.2012 at 09:40

Perhaps if each player was assigned a score much like Rep. A trust rating or something. And it decreases everytime you break an alliance. I also think its a good idea for there to be an SP penalty if you break an alliance

I seriously hate the idea of an SP penalty for deleting an alliance. I mean seriously...people do not like it, and it is crooked, but it is simple strategy. I do like the idea of a trust rating though.

Just a suggestion, but why not make it so the longer alliances have been in place, the more difficult they are to break (ie the stronger they are). Or maybe the earlier they were made, the more difficult they are to break, this way there could be "Super allies" or whatever which could be indicated with a thicker line on the diplomacy screen, and "new allies" which could have a dotted line or something... So for example if an alliance has lasted >5 weeks, it takes say 3 weeks to break, or say >10 weeks it can not be broken. Also, this could prevent from ally spamming on trun 1.

Another suggestion would be to limit the ammount of alliance one player can ahve relative to the number of players in a game, so that way people wont ally with every single play (or even worse, every one but one).

One final idea, and this is just off the top of my head, but I was thinking to not only help newer players in the game, but also prevent ganging up on by stronger players, maybe have a setting where the "total rank" of the alliance is capped, so if there is like a level 10, a level 7, a level 4 and a level 1 in the game, they could cap the alliance rank at say 15, so that the level 10 and 7 could not gang up on the weaker players.

Just suggestions though, from someone who is sick of being backspabbed after an entire game of cooperation.

Cheers