Maybe if this "ability" were limited to the first 30 days of an account on the server or something?  Would have to have a mark like a rainbow to indicate whether the option was active for a particular player.

This problem could also be resolved by establishing a ghost alliance with an alt to which a couple of people have sitting privileges, allowing them to extend invitations.  Would be sort of a waste of an alt, though.

I think it would require a lot of thought.

1) It's conceivable an unallied player might not *want* someone else's troops reinforcing. Perhaps a "wait at the gate" system could be implemented, whereby the receiving player has to officially "open the door" before the reinforcing troops are allowed to come in. Until then, perhaps they set up camp outside the walls. (which might have its own implications)

2) Re: Rill's point about one player thwarting their own alliance's forces. I believe you're saying that by installing some units in an unalligned player's towns, you'd "change the diplomatic nature" of that town and by doing so cause your alliance's attacks to bounce. That brings up interesting game dynamics, and there might not be an all-or-nothing answer. The two extremes are what you suggest (attacking troops bounce) OR that the troops within the walls are now under a different diplomatic banner and thus subject to the same attack. The simplest solution is that the attack wouldn't bounce, and neither would the *allied* (reinforcing) troops suffer the attack. Something like *they sit on the sidelines, watching the two forces fight it out, unable to choose a side. There's probably a fine balance between all three points and I'm sure aspects I'm not picking up on yet.

3) What happens when troops from two different alliances --non-allied with each other-- reinforce the same unaligned town? For that matter, what happens currently when two non-allied alliances reinforce the same town -- which *is* allied with both of them, even though they not with each other... 

Alliance C cannot reinforce non-allied Alliance B, the option will not be given.

The exception is that if Alliance C sieges or blockades alliance B, which is reinforced by alliance A, the siege will continue, but the city will not be able to perform sally forth since the reinforcing troops from Alliance A will cause the sally to "bounce" off the siege camp because of peace of the camp.

As for Dunoobs comment, I am speaking of players not in any alliance who do not wish to or cannot join one. 

And of course nothing of the sort would happen in nCrow, SF!   Although it WOULD increase the possibility of people reinforcing accidentally when they were supposed to attack.  But that would never happen to _us_.  No, never.

/me hears in her head "You ARE the weakest link.  Good-bye."

Doesn't quite answer my question, I don't think (and this scenario is tangential, but perhaps influential to the original subject of the thread). Alliances A and B are both allied with Alliance C, but not with each other. Alliance A reinforces Alliance C, and then Alliance B also sends troops to reinforce Alliance C (in the same town/square). What happens when B's forces arrive? Do they reinforce without fighting A's troops? Do they bounce? Do they attack A and reinforce C?

I know I read a post about peace of camp rules somewhere; that was quite some time ago, so forgive me..

scottfitz wrote: I can see no issue with the unwanted army camp, it would not affect the function of the town, I can't see that happening anyway.

Okay, cool. So how would this apply in the same setup, but now the city being reinforced is unalligned, unallied with anybody?

1) If NAP or confed, the only available option is reinforce

2)  If not NAP or confed, you can Attack, Raid, Siege or Blockade

Presumably this proposal would mean that you would have ALL those options for an unallied city.  As I understand the proposal, the following would occur:

1)  All armies sent to reinforce would reinforce, regardless of what other armies were already there, since the city itself would be considered allied

2)  Armies sent to Raid or Attack would raid or attack if there were no armies allied with the sent army present in the city; if there were such armies present in the city at the time the attacking army arrived, it would bounce.

3)  Armies sent to blockade or siege would blockade or siege without regard to what armies were reinforcing the city; sally forth from the city against an army would bounce if any of the armies reinforcing the city were NAP'd or confed with any of the armies in the siege camp.

 

ScottFitz. Have I missed something or have you alreasdy explained why?!!!!!! Any self respecting gamer would do so. Wouldn't they?

 

I expect it's because he would like to send reinforcing armies to protect the towns of unaligned players in some circumstances.  Seems self-evident.

but you can not pretend 100% performance from your troops in such case. 

 

I made I bet that you would try to answer for him.... and I won

 

No I was predicting your behaviour...

 

...and implying that I would like ScottFitz to explain his reasons ...or do you see yourself as his offciial spokesperson now ?

Luna

 

I have asked ScottFitz to explain the reasons behind the proposals in this  thread.  Control yourself

And if they are willing to join some kind of UN-alliance temporarily they can get reinforcements, no programming time wasted on an in essence pointless feature with unclear side-effects. 

SF's suggestion could be abused, e.g., there are alliances with lots of NAPs.  They could send uninvited reinforcements as siege bouncers to towns of inactive players.    

Note that I am not arguing for or against this idea, just providing information about scenarios people raise.

If someone chooses to remain unaligned, they accept the risk that they could be attacked without having assistance.

This is the reason why alliances exist, is it not?  If this is put through, why would we need alliances?

it makes sense in context, a ruler would have some knowledge about his /her allies, and could prepare his commanders and  troops properly for the task.. defending a town you have no knowledge about, other than it's location will surely put your commanders in distress, thus a less effective performance.

btw making such reinforcement possible with NO negative effect for the defender would kick the propose of NAP and Confederations where sun doesn't shine. .

I see this an an enabling change, rather than one that restricts the sandbox principle. It opens up hidden diplomacy, which could have intelligence/espionage value in future developments.

Edit: + This could potentially modify Peace of the Camp rules, and allow an attacking army to choose the target within a 'camp at peace'.

I really don't understand what needs explanation Prometheuz. I had a situation in which a relatively new player needed help defending against a siege from an agressive neighbor. I was happy to crush the siege, but if the issue had been diplo attacks instead, I would have no means of assisting. My proposal would allow me to send a force of diplos to protect the player until he could bring up his own diplo defenses. As it is my only option is to bring the player into my alliance, but I do not want to do that, nor in this case does the victim. 

My proposal only applies to unaligned players, those in no alliance at all. Players in alliances with which we have no diplomatic agreements would be unaffected.

Again, if someone chooses to not join an alliance they should understand the risk.

This seems to be asking for abuse, and I believe the abuse will be rampant and widespread.

The better alternative would have been to smack down the 'aggressor' IMHO.

As I have said before, not joining an alliance carries risks.

If this type of ability is allowed - why have alliances?  Why have NAP and Confederations?

A few counter-points to consider.