| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
geofrey 
Postmaster General
Joined: 31 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1013
|
 Posted: 23 Jul 2012 at 04:09 |
not need in-game. other mechanics exist to aid a fellow player. If you are not allied with them, you have no business reinforcing them. Alliance diplomacy matters.
|
|
|
 |
Torn Sky
Forum Warrior
Joined: 28 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 402
|
Posted: 23 Jul 2012 at 04:20 |
|
Why does someone have to be in an alliance to receive aid seems kind of limiting.
|
|
Sisren
Forum Warrior
Joined: 03 Feb 2012
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 446
|
Posted: 23 Jul 2012 at 04:30 |
I do not like this idea. 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?
|
|
SugarFree
Forum Warrior
Joined: 09 Feb 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 350
|
Posted: 23 Jul 2012 at 04:34 |
|
IF something like this is actually added, ( i would not object, mind) you have to give the reinforcing army at least a penalty of 20% in effectiveness, since they are stationed on "unfamiliar terrain", this would be most fitting..
|
|
Torn Sky
Forum Warrior
Joined: 28 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 402
|
Posted: 23 Jul 2012 at 04:40 |
 SugarFree wrote:
IF something like this is actually added, ( i would not object, mind) you have to give the reinforcing army at least a penalty of 20% in effectiveness, since they are stationed on "unfamiliar terrain", this would be most fitting.. |
Arnt all attacks outside your town unfamiliar terrain
|
|
SugarFree
Forum Warrior
Joined: 09 Feb 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 350
|
Posted: 23 Jul 2012 at 05:59 |
Nap/ confederate would be known to the ruler that sends troops. there is a huge difference defending an ally, then defending a stranger. 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. .
|
|
Prometheuz
Forum Warrior
Joined: 23 Nov 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 230
|
Posted: 23 Jul 2012 at 14:08 |
|
I haven't really seen and argument in this thread that is convincing. On the other hand I can see lots of ways in which the proposal can be abused. I wondered whether ScottFitz had a particular issue in mind beyond the fact but since he has not offered any reasons for his proposal I am at a loss.
|
|
Torn Sky
Forum Warrior
Joined: 28 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 402
|
Posted: 23 Jul 2012 at 14:15 |
|
The only way it can be abused is if you pick the wrong confed/allies. Are there rules stating that a player can't use the peace of the camp as a shield?
|
|
Albatross
Postmaster General
Joined: 11 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1118
|
Posted: 23 Jul 2012 at 15:28 |
Here's a structure that could work, to improve on Angrim's "Alliances of One" suggestion. - A player has a personal 'diplomacy' list, which contains their diplomatic stances.
- The list contains two types of agreement:
(a) Personal agreements, between the player and other players; and
(b) A block of Alliance agreements (collapsible), which just reproduce their Alliance's stances. - The list is manually sorted by the player, so that entries at the top will override those below.
- Each Personal agreement may be public or private.
Whenever something PvP is done in illy, it can be checked against this list. e.g. you can privately declare war on a NAP-alliance player, or publicly agree NAP with your War-Alliance neighbour.
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'.
Edited by Albatross - 23 Jul 2012 at 15:33
|
|
|
|
scottfitz
Forum Warrior
Joined: 22 Apr 2010
Location: Spokane WA USA
Status: Offline
Points: 433
|
Posted: 23 Jul 2012 at 16:17 |
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.
|
|
Tweet
Reinforcing unaligned players
