NAPs and Confederations

Meagh wrote: Torn Sky is right in his post. If you place an artificial limit on NAPS / Confeds player alliances will just make them without the mechanism. In other games where mechanisms do not exist for this players commonly list agreements in their alliance profile. I think this would happen here if there were any artificial limit so what you want to accomplish (limiting confeds / NAPs) won't be accomplished.

I disagree totally with that statement.  I guarantee that the list of NAPs and Confeds that is shown as allies will go down with my suggestions.  There will not be as many allies when the limit cap is up.  It will be fun to figure out which alliances have a secret confed or nap with another alliance.  Alliances will be rather upset that they were not picked for a confed or a nap and would most likely not want to have a secret friendship. 

Can't help but make a reply.

Recently I have done some deliberations on this aspect of the game and the degree to which the result matches the actual intention an function has. I can't speak as to the developers original intent as I am not privy to those thoughts beyond what is stated in "The Newness" announcement, but I can try and make an assesment.

Lets define the keywords first:

Confederation - Bond, Union - Defensive Pact

- Key Issue: How seriously do you weigh your obligations to a confederate?

NAP - Non agression pact - documentented agreement of peace between two players.

- Key issue: there should be a 10 days quarantine from the time of pact annulment to declaration of war.


Confederacies are defensive pacts and while they needn't require much effort in general, it is crucial that there is more than just a hollow declaration of support in it. The Confederation was added mainly for the smaller alliances, to help them stay on par with larger alliances that would coerce them with military.
Because Military is such a central theme in a confederacy it seems a little silly to be allied with someone on the far distant edge of the map as every town could almost be razed by the time my reinforcements could arrive, not to mention that your strategic options would be severely limited.
In the same way, having many confederations would require involving/being involved in many possible wars with many different parties, which would lead me to the deduction that the credibility of the alliance leadership is either very doubtful, or the alliance itself will be an annoying troublemagnet in the longer run.
Having a Defensive Pact would instead I believe begin to work well in a regional sense, keeping the neighbours safe etc. - Afterall its always better odds to fight on your homefield.

Ind the end you might simply argue that both confederacy and NAPs are limiting as the worthwhile factor of Illyriad are the players that you get to know, work together with and come to trust. That means that people I consider friends will naturally receive my support regardsless of alliances or agreements but I dont feel it is fair to others that I impose my firendship on them by advocating an unrational confederacy.

If I want to prevent the run of the mill misunderstandings, squabbles and arguments - Get a NAP.

I dont believe adding gold cost will solve the problem (but then again I am not really opposed to the thought of restricting it a bit), rather it has to be a part of the general culture/understanding/dogma that keeping clear relations to others is a must if you are to be taken serious.

I may have more to add but I need a break from the screen.

I really do not like the NAP option at all.  I honestly think this feature should be taken out and if it has to stay, my suggestions would make it more reasonable to deal with. 

I do foresee a huge increase of confeds forming to compensate for it.  So, to fix that problem, there should be a confed cap.

Divine Redemption wrote: As the state of the game has evolved to what it is now and will be in the future, I feel NAPs and Confederations should be revamped.  There are too many naps and confederations between alliances in this game.  Alliances should be given less freedom to choose as many naps and confederations as possible.  Limiting alliances the limitless choice of naps and confederations would help the game evolve from the stalemate it is in right now. Here are considerations I feel will help fix the problem: An alliance should only be given three confederations and three naps to give out to other alliances. Each alliance involved in a confederation will have 5% gold tax taken from each member of the respected alliances.  Each alliance involved in a nap will have 2% gold tax taken from each member of the respected alliances. For example, if one alliance has 3 confederations and 3 naps in place with other alliances, as a result, this alliance will have their members taxed a total of 21% of their gold income weekly. For any alliance to get a nap or confederation approved, each alliance involved will need 10 of their members from each alliance to approve the confederation or nap. There will be an initial cost of 10 million gold for each alliance involved in a confederation.  There will be an initial cost of 3 million gold for each nap involved in a nap. Too cancel a confederation, it will cost the same initial cost of 10 million gold and 3 million gold to cancel a nap.  10 members from one alliance can actually void the nap and confederation deal by a vote.  The other alliance that did not vote on the cancelled nap and confederation, will not have to pay any gold, but will receive the other alliances gold payment to cancel the confederation or nap (gold will go to the alliance bank). An alliance will not be able to re-confed or re-nap the same alliance for 3 months if the confederation or nap was cancelled.  To upgrade a nap to a confederation, there will have to be 10 members from each alliance voting yes for it to approve the deal.  The same initial cost for a confederation will be applied. To downgrade a confederation, there will have to be 10 members from each alliance voting yes for it to approve the deal. The same initial cost for a nap will be applied. In order to siege a player in this game that is in an alliance, an alliance has to declare war on the other alliance.  The cost to declare war onto another alliance is 40 million gold.  The other alliance that did not declare war will not be charged a thing for declaring war back.  This means that in order to siege another player, your alliance has to be at war with them.  Military ,diplomacy, and magic attacks are fine without declaring war, but sieging is not.  An alliance can not use diplomat or magic or military attacks against other alliances they have a nap or a confederation with. If a peaceful resolution has been resolved between two alliances, both parties will have to pay 10 million gold to cancel the war.  If a player leaves an alliance, he or she can not join another alliance or rejoin back into his or her old alliance for another 2 weeks.  The cost to leave an alliance will be 500,000 gold.  The cost to re-join the same alliance will cost 2 million gold.  The cost to join your first alliance will be free but...  The 2nd alliance and future alliances he or she decides to join, will cost 2 million gold.  Until he or she has joined 5 different alliances, the cost to join the 6th alliance and others will double for every new alliance that he or she decides to join.  All the gold a member pays to join or leave an alliance will go to the alliance bank. If a player has been kicked from an alliance, that player will not have to pay gold for getting kicked.   The alliance that kicked the player, will have to pay 100,000 gold and the gold will go to the kicked player's bank.  The same rules will apply to rejoin an alliance or other alliances.  The same grace period to rejoin another alliance will also be the same. These suggestions will make decisions harder for alliances and players. These additions will make the game better for all! Please, please give some input onto these ideas.  I would like to read all of your suggestions that would make naps and confederations a harder choice to make in this game.  Also leave suggestions on a player leaving an alliance and what consequences should be enforced as well.

+1

be happy...
the NPCs features some mercenary groups.
ill bet that THOSE will be a nice tool to hurt those you dislike that happen to be in nap whit you or if the confed. of the enemy makes you think twice before engage combat


Edited by Kilotov of DokGthung - 14 Sep 2011 at 00:39