Standard Diplomatic Relations Set (SDRS)

DeletedUser

Guest
This is for discussion of the General Community.

I think it is important to create a standard set of diplomatic relations when dealing with mutliple alliances interacting. Here's the set I propose:

Neutral: No relations with the other alliance, interaction limits up to the leaders of the alliances.

War: A state of conflict between two or more alliances in which players attack each other.

Non-Agression-Pact (more commonly known as a NAP): A state in which two alliances agree not to attack each other, steal the others' farms, etc.

Mutual-Assistance-Pact (MAP, equivelent of Tribal War's 'Alliance'): A state in which two alliances agree to not attack each other and to assist the other in warfare and in general growth.

Family/Coalition/League: A state in which two or more alliances agree to act as a single entity spread over several alliances. Their leadership shares power and act as a single body when going to war, brokering peace, and leading their alliances.

I think it is necessary for all the alliances to accept a general format of diplomacy, or we'll have all sorts of crazy relations springing up (e.g. vassal states, slave kingdoms, fiefdoms, and the ever-popular 'sim-city' alliances). If you agree with this, please try to follow the above levels of relations with the alliances around you. It will probably make game-play easier.

Anyone have any opinions on this?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Makes sense but difficult to enforce, maybe the developers can drop some of that terminology into the game in the update after 1.4
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Yeah, I think it is kind-of hard to do anything without a formal diplomacy screen. When I looked through the alliance for one, I found nothing... so I decided to use an approach I learned in another online game where, since the game has gone on so long, a standard set of diplomatic values are laid down and everyone follows them. Whenever a diplomatic relation is made, it is simply posted in the alliances' forums.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
If you want to ally with another alliance, why not just merge into one big huggy bear alliance?
They are called alliances rather than tribes in this game for a reason. If you are allied to someone, then logically it follows that they are a member of your alliance!
 

DeletedUser

Guest
That gets rid of Family, I guess... but often alliances wish to remain seperate bodies because if they merged, some players would leave in the mess, others would not like the new alliance (there always are a few who don't), and lastly, their government would have to be removed and they basically have to give up their power... unless you want two governments in one mixed group... which is highly un-practical. That's why Tribal Wars and other games that still use the term 'Alliance' (yes, there are other internet games out there that use them, but I can't say what games) still have a level above NAP- be it Alliance, Confederation, League, or Coalition.

Then that still leaves the rest of the list- NAPs, War, and Neutral... I see that you are trying to knock down the list a bit... and I think that in this instance, Family is not applicable to the game. :)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I agree with samulis on his first post:

I would like to see a war and NAP option on a diplomacy screen.

I would also like to see cities on the map be adjusted accordingly by color. Visual referencing of an area is much faster than having to mouse over every city
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I actually like it the way it is. You may form NAPs, go to war, or have any form of treaty you desire with another player or alliance. However, having no mechanism in-game for these actually makes it more realistic:

You have to negotiate any treaty/pact personally and individually.
Any player/alliance can renege on a deal at any time.
You must monitor your alliance to ensure no renegades within it attack your friends.

This means you cannot trust anybody, beyond the knowlegde of consequences you could inflict upon them.
Official NAP's and treaties in-game make the whole process too easy, and do nothing to punish those alliances who will take in anybody. If any player in your alliance is free to break your treaties at any time, recruiting should be a little more selective. Players who do not read the forums, or who do not have the alliance's best interests at heart, can do a lot of damage.....
 

DeletedUser

Guest
meh, the formal diplomacy thing is silly. why not just leave it up to individual players and alliances to broker whatever they want?? like really, maybe we'll set up a vassal state, make them send us tribute or be crushed. it seems feasible. i've done it it TW before. (whether its within the confines of the rules or not... and it was rather newbish,,, a long long time ago)
 
Top