Passed War Declaration

[DeletedUser]

Surely its more fun and much more satisfying when you managed to keep alliances A B C at bay with diplomacy whilst you fight out a war with alliance D, and win? OR with diplomacy you egg alliance A on to attack alliance B, when they've wasted their troops you come in and take out both?

Doesn't this idea force alliances to play a certain way? Doesn't it remove tactics rather than add to the game? Doesn't this idea remove the need for good diplmacy?

Am I missing something?

Nef

 

[DeletedUser]

I do not like how restrictive this idea is and I see it as a huge disadvantage for small alliances.

I am the founder of a small alliance and I particularly like picking out small pockets of much larger alliances and taking them over. However, these large alliances would likely be in a war 24/7 and thus I would see -30 luck every time I attack them. That would be awful and I certainly would not want to draw the attention of the alliance as a whole by declaring war. This idea takes a dimension of strategy out of the game.

I am voting a big NO when the option becomes available.

 

[DeletedUser]

i like it.

maybe their should be a member limt, like if 1 alliance have 300 members
and another have 100, the bigger alliance can't declare war on them only the smaller alliance can.
i'd say if alliance A with 300 members want to declare war, alliance b must have minium of 250 member. for alliance A to declare war on B.
BUT if alliance be have 240 members they can declare war on alliance A, not the other way around.

 

[DeletedUser]

Visual Aids

There could be some sort of aid with regards to the map, similar to TW? - Players of an alliance you're warring with turn red? (this could be linked to other map ideas and lead onto allies/NAPs also having different colours - would also link to the need for a real diplomacy system in-game)
Personally I think it wouldn't help all that much, although a lot of players still attack people they are actually allied with due to them being morons, if these things happen then they happen and you have to deal.

Issues With Original Idea

- One alliance, possibly a smaller one (alliance x), could be used to declate war on a larger alliance (alliance y) in order to restrict their resource production etc with them having no way to stop this. Thus giving a third party alliance (alliance z) an advantage if attacking alliance y without declaring war.

Abuse Prevention

- If an alliance wishes to declare war, the other alliance must agree to war before it becomes official i.e the effects take place? Thus eliminating this issue.

 

[DeletedUser]

Visual Aids

There could be some sort of aid with regards to the map, similar to TW? - Players of an alliance you're warring with turn red? (this could be linked to other map ideas and lead onto allies/NAPs also having different colours - would also link to the need for a real diplomacy system in-game)
Personally I think it wouldn't help all that much, although a lot of players still attack people they are actually allied with due to them being morons, if these things happen then they happen and you have to deal.

Issues With Original Idea

- One alliance, possibly a smaller one (alliance x), could be used to declate war on a larger alliance (alliance y) in order to restrict their resource production etc with them having no way to stop this. Thus giving a third party alliance (alliance z) an advantage if attacking alliance y without declaring war.

Abuse Prevention

- If an alliance wishes to declare war, the other alliance must agree to war before it becomes official i.e the effects take place? Thus eliminating this issue.

1: grepolis map is useless.

2: Em no. As alliance Y would have to do a lot of damage to alliance X and any alliance that attacks another alliance in war get's -30 Luck.

 

[DeletedUser829]

Can we get this put to a poll?

Added 3 more points because of the moral.

1) Warring alliances are always 100% moral
2) Attacking into or out of a war always gives -15% moral, which is added to the moral calculation.

 

[Aicy]

2) Attacking into or out of a war always gives -15% moral, which is added to the moral calculation.

But that makes it possible to have minus morale.

 

[DeletedUser829]

But that makes it possible to have minus morale.

Developers would never let it go below 0.

Range testing would account for that... I didn't realize I "needed" to mention it to that detail :Unhappy:

 

[DeletedUser2795]

:Laugh: How about the morale can nto go below the current minimum (unless we get rid of morale :Smile

 

[DeletedUser]

I think BP needs to be added. 10k BP in a week isn't that much. Serpentine Medea has 7mil point's and drb get's about 30k BP a week. I personally could get ~15k+ BP a week until the introduction of moral. So considering that. I think there need's to be maybe a 1.5 - 2% BP amount.

But seriously turn this into a poll.

 

[DeletedUser]

I am defcon505 and I approve this proposal. It would help little cities from being overrun by bigger cities. ro:

 

[Aicy]

It would help little cities from being overrun by bigger cities. ro:

It would!? Please elaborate how for me.

 

[DeletedUser]

It would!? Please elaborate how for me.

Don't make this hard on me mate. You win already.

 

[DeletedUser]

The idea is simply too complicated I'd suggest that we could simply declare official war but all that would happen is a flag change so the enemy is more easily distinguished. I'd also like allies to be easier to pick out. Perhaps by declaring war on one alliance you could no longer be allowed to attack other alliances at war with the same alliance as you.

 

[DeletedUser829]

I don't see how this is very complicated.

behind the scenes is where all the work is done. All you'd see on your Alliance page is:

Alliance 1:
You're BP Score:1593/3000
Their BP Score: 92358/2000
Alliannce 3:
Your BP Score: 4239/4000
Their BP Score 0/2000

Only once both are above the appropriate value, war can be declared. So All members need to do is attack and get it higher, and hopefully the enemy alliance will do the same.

note this is offensive BP - not defensive.

once both are above, the leaders have the option to declare war - which locks both sides in.

 

[Aicy]

Why not include defensive BP? It's still a part of war.

Hell, in Delta I got to rank 1 in BP with 90% of that being defensive BP which I got from killing thousands of troops in unguarded transport ships whilst losing nothing myself.

I know what you mean, one big alliance could attack another into the state where they can declare war because of the defenders BP. I don't think they should give an equal amount of BP for this or whatever, something like a ratio of 3:1 so this is unlikely to happen.

Although... that would be making a war function more complicated...

 

[DeletedUser]

This idea once it is finalized could easily expand.
A three way war. Winner take all.

Or what about allied alliances. Could there be a 2 on 2 type deal. and if so what keeps things from being lopsided and becoming 5-on-1 or worse

 

[DeletedUser809]

I'm a bit surprised by how much support this idea is getting. I think you can pretty much expect that Devs will never implement anything that will make Diplomacy an in-game feature. It goes against the very nature of browser based gaming.

One aspect of browser games that keeps them fun and interesting is the FORUMS. If you start introducing in-game features that lock diplomacy in place instead of letting it depend on relations between the players and their alliances you greatly reduce the purpose of using forums. If wars become too predictable, if there are limitations on how many participants, when, where or how long wars can last you effectively remove the excitement that goes with open diplomacy on the forums. With diplomacy as a largely forum based aspect of the game you never know what is going to happen next and that is part of what keeps us all glued to our world forums to see who is saying what, trying to guess their intentions or plans etc. This depends on personalities, how much effort alliances put into representing themselves on the forums, how they behave in-game etc. Sudden betrayals, surprise attacks, mob attacks on players or alliances that are provoking others with their talk or their behavior in-game are all part of the fun.

 

[DeletedUser]

I think it is a good idea to bring a new political factor of war into the game BUT maybe not as complicated as what you have done. The Devs are only devs not miracle workers (eg points 1,2 and 13 lol)

 

[DeletedUser]

I have added a poll to this thread that I believe is long overdue. Please vote and voice your opinions on whether or not you would like to see this idea implemented.

Poll will be open for 2 weeks.