| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Kurfist 
Postmaster
Joined: 14 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 824
|
 Topic: More Diplomatic options between alliances
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
|
 |
Nesse
Forum Warrior
Joined: 03 Oct 2010
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 406
|
Posted: 28 Oct 2011 at 22:12 |
 intor wrote:
- Free Trade Treaty - Allows both alliances to use each others roads without paying tolls. Could also allow the use of each others ports. Though this assumes that we will be able to order a caravan to move to a location and wait there for further orders, without them immediately returning home, as is the case now. This would allow you to move goods between caravans outside cities, and could let you move goods between caravans and transport ships in foreign cities.
- Open Borders Agreement - Allows unhindered movement of units through each other's territory (sovereignty squares). This assumes that non-allied units would suffer attrition/stat penalties while moving through your sovereignty squares.
|
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.
|
|
Thexion
Forum Warrior
Joined: 17 Apr 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 258
|
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.
|
|
Albatross
Postmaster General
Joined: 11 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1118
|
Posted: 28 Oct 2011 at 12:31 |
intor wrote:
- Shared Intelligence Treaty - Basically gives you access to each other's Diplo visibility and/or prevents diplomatic units from being able to carry out aggressive actions against anyone with whom you have this treaty. Once it's possible for us to station diplomatic units, could also mean that diplomatic units from anyone with whom you have this treaty, currently present in your cities, would help defend you.
|
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>.
GM Stormcrow wrote:
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. |
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. |
|
SunStorm
Postmaster
Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Location: "Look Up"
Status: Offline
Points: 979
|
Posted: 28 Oct 2011 at 06:51 |
Koragg +1I was reading it so fast, missed that altogether. *goes to eye clinic for a check-up*
|
"Side? I am on nobody's side because nobody is on my side" ~LoTR
|
|
Koragg
Greenhorn
Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 67
|
Posted: 28 Oct 2011 at 05:34 |
SunStorm wrote:
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) |
StormCrow wrote:
It is envisaged that in the circumstance where an alliance has conflicting pacts, they will not automatically declare anything. |
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]
|
|
SunStorm
Postmaster
Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Location: "Look Up"
Status: Offline
Points: 979
|
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)
|
"Side? I am on nobody's side because nobody is on my side" ~LoTR
|
|
HonoredMule
Postmaster General
Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
|
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
|
|
Mara Zira
Forum Warrior
Joined: 14 Aug 2011
Location: Arkansas, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 223
|
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.
|
|
Mara Zira
Forum Warrior
Joined: 14 Aug 2011
Location: Arkansas, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 223
|
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?
Edited by Mara Zira - 11 Oct 2011 at 00:26
|
|
Tweet
More Diplomatic options between alliances