| Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 22 Jul 2012 at 06:01 |
An unwanted reinforcing army could prevent an Exodus and possibly a Tenaril. I'm sure on the Exo but not on the Tenaril.
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."
Edited by Rill - 22 Jul 2012 at 06:02
|
 |
scottfitz
Forum Warrior
Joined: 22 Apr 2010
Location: Spokane WA USA
Status: Offline
Points: 433
|
Posted: 22 Jul 2012 at 05:53 |
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. As for Rill's concern, if something like that were to happen, that alliance has some serious issues indeed!
As for Dunoobs comment, I am speaking of players not in any alliance who do not wish to or cannot join one.
|
 |
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 22 Jul 2012 at 01:50 |
Currently under peace of the camp, if forces from Alliance A reinforce a city from Alliance B and the city is attacked by Alliance C which is NAP'd or confed with Alliance A (but not Alliance B), then the attack will bounce on arrival.
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.
|
 |
Garth
Forum Warrior
Joined: 10 May 2012
Location: Somewhere, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 249
|
Posted: 22 Jul 2012 at 01:15 |
I think the option would be good. A couple of observations/ingredients to throw into the pot:
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... 
|
 |
Angrim
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 1173
|
Posted: 22 Jul 2012 at 00:51 |
|
i have wondered for some time if it would be practical to allow unaligned players to conclude diplomatic agreements as though they were "alliances of one". it would seem that something close to that would be required to implement ScottFitz's request.
|
 |
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 22 Jul 2012 at 00:49 |
I like the idea, definitely. However, I think it would wreak havoc with other aspects of the game. Such as ... someone in one's own alliance could betray the alliance by reinforcing someone the alliance was scheduled to attack. Even one troop and one commander could thus thwart massive armies, at least until the alliance was able to track down the person responsible, which would be made more difficult if the reinforcing armies had substantial numbers of scouts.
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.
|
 |
EvilKatia
Forum Warrior
Joined: 30 Jun 2012
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 210
|
Posted: 22 Jul 2012 at 00:42 |
its an interesting idea. More thieves would get caught for sure. Give the new players a longer time before they decide to jump in an alliance or another for 'security' reason too.
|
|
Kat
'They have to always turn a forum post into a badly written book that gives a headache and takes your iq points' - AO
|
 |
tallica
Forum Warrior
Joined: 27 Jun 2011
Location: Seattle, WA
Status: Offline
Points: 378
|
Posted: 22 Jul 2012 at 00:33 |
|
this is a novel idea, like it!
|
 |
dunnoob
Postmaster
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Location: Elijal
Status: Offline
Points: 800
|
Posted: 22 Jul 2012 at 00:33 |
Unconvinced... In theory you could send 500K gold and a mail telling them how to accept your NAP offer. Or find a small ersatz-alliance, and offer a confederation if they are willing to invite random folks in trouble for short visits on your say so.
|
 |
scottfitz
Forum Warrior
Joined: 22 Apr 2010
Location: Spokane WA USA
Status: Offline
Points: 433
|
Posted: 22 Jul 2012 at 00:20 |
|
I would like the ability to send reinforcing armies to protect the towns of unaligned players, new players who are not yet ready, or able to, join an alliance.
|
 |