More Diplomatic options between alliances
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: Miscellaneous
Forum Name: Suggestions & Game Enhancements
Forum Description: Got a great idea? A feature you'd like to see? Share it here!
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=2595
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 13:13
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: More Diplomatic options between alliances
Posted By: Mara Zira
Subject: More Diplomatic options between alliances
Date Posted: 10 Oct 2011 at 18:29
|
I think the current options for diplomatic relationships between alliances are war, peace, NAP, and Confederation. Could we have some other options that would make the relationships between alliances more varied and clear? I'd like "Mutual Defense Treaty" added to the options. It would be for alliances who will help their treaty partners defend their cities against sieges and attacks, but they are not bound to join in the treaty partner's offense or wars. And maybe change NAP to Non-Aggression Pact so newbies know what it means without having to ask. Anyone have other ideas of treaties or relationships to add? Beyond Mutual Loathing as one short of War.  |
Replies:
Posted By: intor
Date Posted: 10 Oct 2011 at 19:30
I have a few, though they will only make sense once several other features have been implemented.
EDIT: Forgot to add that not all diplomatic options should be only between alliances. Some should also be available between individual players, e.g. 2 players from different alliances could have a Free Trade Treaty between them, even if the alliances they belong to don't have any diplomatic agreements.
|
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 10 Oct 2011 at 19:35
|
Hi Mara, That's a great suggestion and is on the to-do list already. We'll be releasing a variety of new alliance diplomacy options, running from: War -> Truce -> Neutrality -> NAP -> MDP (Mutual Defence Pact) -> Confederation It's anticipated that these statuses will *automatically* draw alliances into war if the criteria are met. Examples of what a Mutual Defence Pact would mean: Example 1 Alliance A and Alliance B have a mutual defence pact. Alliance C declares war on Alliance B, and this will automatically declare from Alliance C to Alliance A as well (who are coming to the aid of Alliance B). Example 2 Alliance A and Alliance B have a mutual defence pact. Alliance B declares war on Alliance C... and that's it. Because the act of aggression was from Alliance B, Alliance A is not drawn into the conflict, as the pact between Alliance A and Alliance B is defensive in nature. Confederations will draw all partner alliances into a unified action (and we do understand that this will mean people will be much choosier about their confederation partners). It is envisaged that in the circumstance where an alliance has conflicting pacts, they will not automatically declare anything. Truce would be an intermediate status from War - a cease-fire of sorts that could be broken (details TBC). Any other ideas for diplomatic relations, though, would be welcome. Regards, SC
|
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 10 Oct 2011 at 19:37
| Also, intor - absolutely. When those aspects are ready to go there will be a system for managing these interactions. Good thinking! |
Posted By: Mara Zira
Date Posted: 10 Oct 2011 at 21:03
Good ideas, but I especially like what this one implies. It'd be great if everyone in the same alliance, or even in confederated alliances, could share diplomatic visibility fields. Or at least that you could "use" an alliance mate's diplomatic visibility range on cities where their range overlapped yours. Same with your own cities where their ranges overlap, so you'd see the incoming diplomat in the targeted city just as soon as it passed by your outermost "linked" city. Then there would be a huge advantage to being in an alliance, and for the alliance members to be relatively close together, and to keep your own cities in hubs... Any idea how long before we can at least declare Mutual Defense Pacts? It'd be nice if we got it now instead of when the whle automatic-pull-in system is in place....  |
intor wrote:Posted By: Mara Zira
Date Posted: 10 Oct 2011 at 23:36
|
SC, so even if alliances A and B agree to a purely city-defending measures meaning to the Mutual Defense Pact (Alliance A would reinforced Alliance B's cities and attack Alliance C's sieges), they would automatically declare war against Alliance C? Hmmm. Maybe instead they could automatically declare Aggression toward Alliance C instead? Something to indicate the limited extent of their involvement. As in, if War is declared, the status on both alliances' Diplomacy pages will show War. But could there be varying degrees that other alliances are pulled in based on their associations with those alliances, and those levels could be increased if they chose? |
Posted By: Mara Zira
Date Posted: 11 Oct 2011 at 00:23
|
I've been thinking it over a bit, and I'd suggest adding Aggression to your list if you're going to automate things like you said. War -> Aggression -> Truce -> Neutrality -> NAP -> MDP (Mutual Defence Pact) -> Confederation Aggression would be for limited warfare situations, like an alliance against one or two players of another alliance. Aggression status wouldn't pull the alliances in confederation or MDP with either alliance into the warfare unless they manually decided to do so. Of course, the alliance that has had Aggression declared against them can always upgrade it by declaring War back, but I think it would also need to be automatically upgraded to War from the declarer's side if someone they are in Confederation with also declares Aggression on the same alliance. (As in, we don't want multiple people on one side doing Aggression to trick the other into being the one to declare War so their MDP won't kick in). Anyway, tying this into my previous post, if MDP alliances automatically declare Aggression (instead of War) when the primary alliance has War declared against it, then the MDP alliance's Confeds and MDPs wouldn't automatically declare War or Aggression. The chain reaction would stop with the alliance declaring Aggression. The others could join in if they wanted to, but declaring War wouldn't automatically cause a global war involving everyone whether they were wanted and needed or not. |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 27 Oct 2011 at 22:05
|
I would very much like to see diplomatic status become one-directional. For example, instead of mutual defense pacts, Alliance A should be able to declare defensive support for Alliance B without expecting the same in return. Alliance A should not be forced to acknowledge "war status" with Alliance B when B poses no legitimate threat nor even deserves recognition for their actions. Alliance A should be able to (via meta-diplomacy) negotiate a Confed-MDP relationship where one actively fights with the other but only expects defensive support in return. Etcetera... Let A flag their own relationships at the degree to which they outwardly enforce them, letting others do the same. And then let these flags serve as informational tools only, letting all alliances choose any actual orders, from attacking confederate partners to reinforcing outright war opponents. Let launch orders reflect the degree to which peace of the camp will be applied (i.e. select "MDP" to mean choose friendly-versioned execution of orders if my alliance has declared MDP or greater relationship toward some party already present). Then offer notifications to authorized alliance roles notifying of other alliances altering their relationship status toward you. ------------- "Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now." - HonoredMule |
Posted By: SunStorm
Date Posted: 28 Oct 2011 at 03:41
|
Can you clarify what happens when Alliance A and Alliance B (who are both Confederated with Alliance C) declare war on one another. Does alliance C drop into neutral, or does it show up to them as being at war with both Alliance A and B? (0.o) -------------
|
Posted By: Koragg
Date Posted: 28 Oct 2011 at 05:34
I have above average reading comprehension skills, I think most people would have missed this line on the first read-through. ------------- -------- Koragg, Faction Abassador for Dwarven Druids [Druid] Phineous, Trade Co-ordinator for Fairy Road Authority [Roads] |
Posted By: SunStorm
Date Posted: 28 Oct 2011 at 06:51
|
Koragg +1 I was reading it so fast, missed that altogether. *goes to eye clinic for a check-up* -------------
|
Posted By: Albatross
Date Posted: 28 Oct 2011 at 12:31
Although I like this in principle, it's more of the "instant information flow" functionality that I would expect to be phased out in the very long term </speculation>.
Although this seems to trigger a straightforward chain of declaration events, there are situations where networks of standings will lead to an unresolvable discrepancies in the chain, where there is a pre-declared circuit of mixed standings, rather than a tree. To determine where in the circuit to stop changing stances, you might need to sum up 'maximum degrees of separation' to determine closeness to the manually-set declarations (default stance*). * You might also need to keep track of this: the default stance is what alliances themselves set, whereas the 'effective stance' would be what triggered events have dictated. End Note: If you didn't understand this, I can go into detail, but I kinda wanted to avoid lengthy examples. |
Posted By: Thexion
Date Posted: 28 Oct 2011 at 12:54
|
+1 Albatross I like the idea that there would be declared diplomatic treaty like confederation what it includes could be decided by the alliances. And It could be secret or public as the confederates would like. |
Posted By: Nesse
Date Posted: 28 Oct 2011 at 22:12
Good thinking. :) Though I hope there will be many more shades of trade treaties available. If (See http://uk1.illyriad.co.uk/#/Alliance/Alliance/509) taxable roads become available, it would be great to have a scale of fees from "almost free" for friends, through "discounted prices" for a larger group and "list price" as default, maybe even "way overpriced" for alliances and/or players that are seen as potential threats or competitors.
|
Posted By: Kurfist
Date Posted: 28 Oct 2011 at 22:18
|
I wonder how hard it would be to code all that though.
------------- Patience is a virtue, resource giving is a sin |