MP Alliances functionality?

[Edi]

It'd be easy to do if ally setup would be from the beginning of the game and can't be altered during the game, that would enable teams. It'd cause a lot more problems, though, because you couldn't attack allied provinces or troops, which would be a logistical nightmare if you needed to take troops through allied territory. Unless the allied flag would allow "sneaking" through allied territory so that the ally sees roughly how big an army is moving there but can't do anything else.

The downside would be prevention of the ruthless game of diplomacy and opportunistic backstabbing that MP now entails.

Edi

[DominionsFan]

I've forgot to mention, that moving through your allies territory with your troops [without attacking their provinces] would be also awesome. We had a 2v2 team game on the Silent Seas map a few days ago, and our team's placement was horrible. I blocked my team mate totally on land, so he couldnt move anywhere only when he took my bordering provinces.

[Nerfix]

Edi said:The downside would be prevention of the ruthless game of diplomacy and opportunistic backstabbing that MP now entails.

Edi

Not necessarily a downside as the option for ruthless games of diplomacy and opportunistic backstabbing would still be there.

[Teraswaerto]

I wouldn't like it if an MP game had pre-set "teams". Diplomacy, forging alliances, trying to figure out who you can trust, etc. is huge part of what makes MP games fun.

[DominionsFan]

Teraswaerto said:
I wouldn't like it if an MP game had pre-set "teams". Diplomacy, forging alliances, trying to figure out who you can trust, etc. is huge part of what makes MP games fun.

True, there should be an option to offer alliance even when the game is running. Than pre-set teams wouldn't be required at all. However shared vision, moving on your allies territory without attacking the provinces etc. would be a must have still.
On a second thought I doubt that these things will be added, since the concept of the game is somewhat against it. Gods are fighting, so forging alliances are probably out of question.

[Teraswaerto]

Shared vision takes away the possibility to give false information to your "allies", and the other things might have similar effects depending on how they are implemented.

Adding some kind of support for alliances would be good I guess, but you'd have to be careful it doesn't take away something else.

[DominionsFan]

Teraswaerto said:
Shared vision takes away the possibility to give false information to your "allies", and the other things might have similar effects depending on how they are implemented.

Adding some kind of support for alliances would be good I guess, but you'd have to be careful it doesn't take away something else.

I think that we are talking about different things. I am talking about team vs. team blitz games. There 1 team wins, not 1 player, its a huge difference.

[Teraswaerto]

Yeah, I'm not talking about blitz games. I'm mainly thinking large PBEM games where there are no pre-set alliances, and the winner is typically an alliance of a few people who stop playing and declare themselves winners when there's no one else left (or they admit defeat).

[DominionsFan]

Teraswaerto said:
Yeah, I'm not talking about blitz games. I'm mainly thinking large PBEM games where there are no pre-set alliances, and the winner is typically an alliance of a few people who stop playing and declare themselves winners when there's no one else left (or they admit defeat).

Yeah PDEM games are pretty different in this case. However many people are playing blitzes so the alliance system would be a real benefit for them especially.

[Chazar]

I think a Dominion-style alliance system should be very simple and very basic. Like this:

Each player should have an simple on/off switch for each other nation.

Flipping the switch produces a normal message to that player on his next turn.

If the switch is on, then you will never fight against that nation, i.e. your own armies will immediately retreat if attacked by that player (as if routing). [i]Your own[i] armies will stay put instead of attacking a province owned by that nation, except if the procinve does not contain any non-hiding commander. In this way, you can make sure that you do not accidentally fight your ally, but can attack along a common frontier without too much coordination.

In addition, if [i]you[/]i are attacked by that nation, your PD will not fight, but is preserved for the new occupier. Unnrest caused by handing the province over to the new owner should be minimal. Castles are not handed over and treated as if under siege (storming is possible as usual - either for backstabbing or for handing over empty castles). Thus armies can move through each others territories without causing too much damage (i.e. loosing PD and causing lots of unrest.) Gems, Items and Gold can already be sent through the message system, and that is enough in my view. Resources and supplies cannot be moved inside your own territory, so you should not be able to sent it to your allies either.

Best of all: Instant backstabbing is possible, just flip your own switch! After all, the switch only affect the behaviour of your armies! Furthermore, you must trust your allies that they flip their own switch when they have promised to do so, so a full alliance means that both have set the switch to "ON", and reacting to backstabbing takes a turn!