Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Question on alliances


Recommended Posts

Now that first turn of voting has passed there is something that appears to be changed : 

 

No cooldown between 2 alliances votes if the votes remain the same , just a direct renewal of the alliance without cooldown seems to be more appropriated.

 

 

 

One thing that came to my attention :

 

a contested port seems to not allow the allies to enter in it anymore once it is in contested mode,

the allies should benefit from the same rights as the initial port owner who got the port captured, able to enter port and if needed evacuate ships and stuff from there while in contested mode and this up to the maintenance like the original Nation owning it,

 

not sure if it's just something that had been forgot or by design that it is impossible to enter a contested allied port.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that came to my attention :

 

a contested port seems to not allow the allies to enter in it anymore once it is in contested mode,

the allies should benefit from the same rights as the initial port owner who got the port captured, able to enter port and if needed evacuate ships and stuff from there while in contested mode and this up to the maintenance like the original Nation owning it,

 

not sure if it's just something that had been forgot or by design that it is impossible to enter a contested allied port.

I've noticed this as well. I can't think of any reason why it would have been done on purpose.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to see a discussion on :

 

1) How can a nations voters 'sue for peace' or 'surrender' and what / how would that work so it cannot be used by an aggressor to 'surrender' as a way of disengaging in advantage.

2) I don't think you should be able to attack anyone you are NOT at war with (except pirates who are at war with everything).

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in my opinion the voting system is not correct.  You have to vote for war to get an ally.  If you have an ally and are at war you must go to war with someone else to vote for another ally.   Then you risk losing your first ally because of the lapse in time between votes and you could not vote for your TRUE ALLY .  You have to vote for war with someone else and Ally someone else or let your ally lapse.   

 

I think we need to make it so that you can vote for the Ally you want to keep no matter if you have an enemy or not.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in my opinion the voting system is not correct.  You have to vote for war to get an ally.  If you have an ally and are at war you must go to war with someone else to vote for another ally.   Then you risk losing your first ally because of the lapse in time between votes and you could not vote for your TRUE ALLY .  You have to vote for war with someone else and Ally someone else or let your ally lapse.   

 

I think we need to make it so that you can vote for the Ally you want to keep no matter if you have an enemy or not.

 

Yeh I don't really understand why I have to vote 1 point of hate to qualify to give 1 point of love. Just delink them. Let me vote 10 points of ally and 0 new wars...or whatever....oh and we need to work out how you 'surrender' / 'sue for peace' too.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is a 'bug' or at least an explanation as to how BR is meant to work with allies. I have F11'd this.

 

If you are in a combined group of say 20 1st rates. Made up of 15 Brits and say 5 allied Dutch and the enemy TAG one of the Dutch...the BR calculation for initiating combat is ONLY considering the DUTCH BR and not the combined ALLIED force. This led to a fair amout of peskyness the other day....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

why vote ? with 3 allies we know who wil win.

I wouldn't place my bets on it just like that.

A large Alliance will have many Regions in which hostilities can erupt. In the Regions they are pushing they will likely face multiple time slot crews as opposed to one.

Then there is still the Free Empire to serve as wildcard and Pirates to play trouble on those large Nations.  :ph34r:  :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't place my bets on it just like that.

A large Alliance will have many Regions in which hostilities can erupt. In the Regions they are pushing they will likely face multiple time slot crews as opposed to one.

Then there is still the Free Empire to serve as wildcard and Pirates to play trouble on those large Nations. :ph34r::P

That's exactly how our clan is preparing. Trouble for large nations who burned their bridges with us. They will be wishing the under the table alliance existed. Mwahahaha (insert sinister laugh)

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is a 'bug' or at least an explanation as to how BR is meant to work with allies. I have F11'd this.

 

If you are in a combined group of say 20 1st rates. Made up of 15 Brits and say 5 allied Dutch and the enemy TAG one of the Dutch...the BR calculation for initiating combat is ONLY considering the DUTCH BR and not the combined ALLIED force. This led to a fair amout of peskyness the other day....

 

Not sure if this was the test intent since I wasn't there, but the Portillo experiment could potentially have highlighted a way to deal with this bug - e.g. if a French fleet wanted to launch out of a Swedish port, the flag carrier could be tagged indefinitely since only his own BR would count - but if the carrier is able to be French instead, this wouldn't occur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After few rounds of voting..

With current 3(?) allies at the same time, the game seems to become one of two blocks (and pirates).

In order to get more action and potential targets, I still think that only 1 ally would be the best.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After few rounds of voting..

With current 3(?) allies at the same time, the game seems to become one of two blocks (and pirates).

In order to get more action and potential targets, I still think that only 1 ally would be the best.

 

Only if the most populated nation is allowed none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These in game mechanics called " politics" offer too limited options.

Treaties which were developed by the adimralty of many clans or nations were much better.

It is if You compare a McDonalds fast food temple with a proper restaurant!

I am not interested to be forced in my behaviour to fullfill a 3,95$ war against a nation for a certain amount of time.

Do we really need that in game feature?

If the devs dont want to throw away their precious coding - why not turn it into a voting for a certain weather in the coming week?

And I promise You we would do port battling in a stormy setup...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Increase it, see how it goes. If people whine, adjust to get a moderate happyness. I'd like it for the timescale you've said, but I'd like clauses in it so if an alliance isn't working it can be voted to be cancelled. Rather than have a unchangeable time limit to alliances. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there should be introduced some neutral state and peace agreement mechanics. For example, the defeated nation gives away some ports and/or pay reparations and becomes neutral (with or without trading rights). Right now in order to surrender the defeated nation must ally with their former enemies, which is dumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there should be introduced some neutral state and peace agreement mechanics. For example, the defeated nation gives away some ports and/or pay reparations and becomes neutral (with or without trading rights). Right now in order to surrender the defeated nation must ally with their former enemies, which is dumb.

For transferring ports I have put up http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/15241-buy-a-port-bribe-a-lord/

Pay reparations can simple be a transfer of gold via the leaders. You may not trust your own leaders, but that is your problem. :)

Trading rights do not really have to be extended, just don't attack the other Nation smugglers.

Which leaves us with surrender, which is actually very funny. There can be two outcomes:

1. One becomes the "Monarch" (need a better word here) and the other the Vassal State. Effectively merging the surrendering Nation. Players should then have the option to step onto the Road of Independence.

2. Both come into a state where they have access to another ports and battles, ergo Allied. :)

After that, relationships can deteriorate again. :ph34r::D

And that nicely brings us back around to:

Simply make both sides able to file their own National edict for Alliance (or War), then the actual standing is the lowest of the two edicts combined.

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/15655-national-and-clan-edicts/

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/16218-voting-power-politics/

But then with the added "Monarch" and "Vassal State" options on the edict for other Faction's relationship.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tnink two warring blocks is ideal for the game, as it is similar to a global war with two sides only, typical for 18th century. So 3 allies it is, + pirates. And can we get rid of this confirmation window that pops up every time we vote? So annoying.

I disagree. Having just two power blocks is a quick way to make the game dull. Might as well remove all of the nations except England & France and set the game during the 1780s-1815. It is a quick, easy way to stagnate the political situation, as once those power blocks have been formed, why change them? DN, Sve & Fr would obviously form one block to their mutual benefit for the Lesser Antilles, the other four would coalesce into a block of 3 with one nation left out in the cold.  It would just make a mockery of even having a political system to start with.

 

I'd go for just one alliance per nation. That way each Nation will have a 'buddy', but at the same time they've still got to be wary of other nations heading into their waters to attack shipping or attacking upon another front. It would also allow the political dialogues to shift as nations grow and diminish in power/territory.

Edited by Rikard Frederiksen
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

1 ally, as to many alliances reduces opportunities for pvp.

Time > until either nation has majority of negative votes towards other at the time of count.

 

Please introduce something between such as Neutral/ friendly, where ow is allowed but not buying flags.

Edited by TrackTerror
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then add the Portuguese as a nation and everyone may find a friend. Question is: would those 4 alliances really fight each other or would they create none official alliances as we had before? In the end two blocks plus a pirate faction is most likely.

I'd disagree. Even if we ended up with blocks through player made treatise, there is a distinct difference between hard-coded alliances as we currently have them, and said player-made treaties. With player-made treaties they're between portions of players in nations who can choose whether to abide by them or not. They're a means of expedience, that can last as long or short a period time as any of the treaty member requires - they can stay strong or can break down in a short period of time. That is what makes them more interesting, as they allow for a greater level of political intrigue, political sabotage and backstabbing, with political situations changing effectively overnight. It creates an aura of uncertainty as to whether your treaty partner will stab you in the back or not, whether the treaty will hold, and whether you wish to abide by it or not.

The other advantage of player-driven politics/treaties is that those who don't care about politics, who just want to get out there and fight/PvP can. They're not restricted by a system that says they have to travel to the frontiers to find action because Nations B & C are allied with A. It also allows those who would be diplomats to do what they enjoy and communicate with those of other nations, trying to negotiate terms and trying to ensure their treaty partner(s) aren't trying to, or are able to, get one up over them.

Edited by Rikard Frederiksen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...