[Discuss] An Ingame Alliance War feature

[noah02]

thank you that answers my questions and so i decide not to agree with the idea as I read duke pauls bit about 2 alliances going 2 war creating immunity by not actually fighting.
I dont like the idea of restrictions in Pa of any type to be honest apart from the % were everyone dont get to n00b bash the lil uns to zilch.
Paying for this game is starting to become less attractive as it starts to lose more freedom to do things.

[arbondigo]

Originally Posted by noah02

thank you that answers my questions and so i decide not to agree with the idea as I read duke pauls bit about 2 alliances going 2 war creating immunity by not actually fighting.

k) If at any time after the first 72 ticks of war the number of hostiles per tick over the last 72 ticks falls under 10 per 72 ticks the state of war is relaxed (ended).
l) If at any time after the first 72 ticks of war the number of hostiles the declaring alliance has sent against the targeted alliance falls under 20 per 72 ticks the state of war is relaxed (ended).

Perhaps it could be changed to if less than x fleets are sent within first 24hrs then it could be cancelled to avoid this immunity? But why would alliances use immunity? Others can still declare war on them, and they won't be able to get the bonuses that their enemy will because they have declared war on an ally which they don't intend to attack. I can't see alliances using "immunity" as has been described.

[Kal]

Originally Posted by DukePaul

Now, I thought a bit about limiting the number of wars it's possible to have at any one time - If 2 alliances just declare on each other, and then do nothing, they will both gain some immunity towards other alliances wanting to declare war the two aliances (or one of the two). Guess that's a problem with limited number of warslots.

read what banned just said to mist they can;t just keep war declared on each other unless they actually fight wach other

[Alessio]

I like it.. bcz of the same obvious reasons as other peeps

[noah02]

Originally Posted by arbondigo

k) If at any time after the first 72 ticks of war the number of hostiles per tick over the last 72 ticks falls under 10 per 72 ticks the state of war is relaxed (ended).
l) If at any time after the first 72 ticks of war the number of hostiles the declaring alliance has sent against the targeted alliance falls under 20 per 72 ticks the state of war is relaxed (ended).

Perhaps it could be changed to if less than x fleets are sent within first 24hrs then it could be cancelled to avoid this immunity? But why would alliances use immunity? Others can still declare war on them, and they won't be able to get the bonuses that their enemy will because they have declared war on an ally which they don't intend to attack. I can't see alliances using "immunity" as has been described.

Very helpful thank you
Ok I kinda swaying towards it now
Starting to like it better.

[Conall]

The more I think about it the more I like the idea of declaring war straight out – no formulae, no calcs, just a declaration. Like so:

Alliance A declares war on alliance B – this is posted to a WAR screen in game so everyone can see that A declared War on B.

B can choose to ignore the declaration or accept it. Declaration can remain open as long as A wishes to leave it out there.

If B ignores it, then everyone knows (because its on the War screen) they did not have the guts to answer the challenge or that they made a smart move by ignoring A. If people see they don’t have the guts it opens them up to more attacks and potential wars. No BS on the AD forum with both sides spewing nonsense and everyone having to figure out who did and didn’t declare/answer the war.

If both sides accept then do away with bash limits, raise roid cap and structure kill levels immediately. And its posted to the War screen.

Either side can call a truce that effectively ends the state of war 24 hours after truce is called – all levels and limits return to normal at the end of 24 hours. Posted to War screen.

An alliance can declare war on as many alliances as they choose and keep that state open as long as both sides agree. All posted on the War screen.

Now let’s add a few twists:

Add official blocks/NAPs

Alliance B and C decide to Block/NAP. So if someone declares war on the B – both sides have the same removal of limitations on C – meaning C can attack A with no Bash limit and high roid and SK limits and A can do the same to C. Also posted on the War screen.

If B and C decide to NAP after A declares war on B then they must wait 24 hours before C and A have same War status as A and B – this way 6 alliances can’t NAP and pound A without them having the chance to truce with B.

Additional options –
NAPed alliances have reduced def eta -1, same as alliances
Alliances at War cannot defend each other, even in galaxy

This removes all the potential abuses of the above system, makes politics more transparent and accomplishes the hyper state of war that this suggestion originally wanted.

Plus it doesn’t put small alliances at risk and prevents insulation of large alliances through fear tactics.

This idea I can support.

[Tyroka]

Originally Posted by Conall

The more I think about it the more I like the idea of declaring war straight out – no formulae, no calcs, just a declaration. Like so:

Alliance A declares war on alliance B – this is posted to a WAR screen in game so everyone can see that A declared War on B.

B can choose to ignore the declaration or accept it. Declaration can remain open as long as A wishes to leave it out there.

If B ignores it, then everyone knows (because its on the War screen) they did not have the guts to answer the challenge or that they made a smart move by ignoring A. If people see they don’t have the guts it opens them up to more attacks and potential wars. No BS on the AD forum with both sides spewing nonsense and everyone having to figure out who did and didn’t declare/
answer the war.

Would u still be able to attack planets in an alliance without declaring war at them? I assume that would be possible, so what prevents the not knowing who started the war? Alliance B attacks alliance A heavily, A notices this and declares war on alliance B... Did alliance A or B start the war? A did officially but well B did unofficially.
Would we know if B targetted A heavily before A declared war? No, not more than we know as the system is now (u can know through rumours/intel but not in any other way).
I don't see how your idea can help.
If it's not possible to attack eachother without declaring war then the game looses it's touch totally.

Originally Posted by Conall

Additional options –
NAPed alliances have reduced def eta -1, same as alliances

and that removes the whole idea of any alliance-max, just remove that instead.

Banneds idea has potential, but might be abused in some way. Will think more about his idea when I have the time

[fizzyxl]

Originally Posted by Banned

No it doesn't. Your idea is ****ing awful. A freebie way of getting an alliance coord list is not the same as a system for alliance war.

no its not! both sides agree to the war before they get the list!

besides its better than the way it works atm of either hoping that your attacking the enemy alliance. or putting spys in etc! its far cleaner and you can have all this crap aswell!

[Conall]

Originally Posted by Tyroka

Would u still be able to attack planets in an alliance without declaring war at them?

Yes

Originally Posted by Tyroka

I assume that would be possible, so what prevents the not knowing who started the war? Alliance B attacks alliance A heavily, A notices this and declares war on alliance B... Did alliance A or B start the war? A did officially but well B did unofficially. Would we know if B targetted A heavily before A declared war? No, not more than we know as the system is now (u can know through rumours/intel but not in any other way).

Does it really mater why they declared war, maybe it's because they have been attacked, maybe it's because they want the roids, maybe its because it benefits an alliance they are friendly with, or maybe they just don't like them. What ever the reason War was declared, if they want they can explain that on AD, but who will beleive any of it anyway.

Originally Posted by Tyroka

I don't see how your idea can help.
If it's not possible to attack eachother without declaring war then the game looses it's touch totally.

It prevents abused and insulation, which the original suggestion does not. And you can still attack whoever you wish, you just don't get the benefits of higher caps and no bash limit.

Originally Posted by Tyroka

and that removes the whole idea of any alliance-max, just remove that instead.

Not really, because they can break a Nap at any time and it does not leave an entire alliance defenseless for 72 ticks like leaving an alliance would do. But if it is a problem remove the eta bonus for def and leave the rest.

Frankly I think it would make politics more fluid as everyone can see who is NAPed in game. Granted it does not prevent out of game naps but they don't get the benefits that in game Nap provides.

[Conall]

Some other thoughts:
The orignal idea with minimum requirements may make impossible for smaller alliances to decalre war on each other because they have a hard time reaching the lower limits - if war can be declared straigh out then that is not an issue.

[mist]

or just launch repeatedly, untill someone fixes that at least.

[arbondigo]

Originally Posted by fizzyxl

no its not! both sides agree to the war before they get the list!

besides its better than the way it works atm of either hoping that your attacking the enemy alliance. or putting spys in etc! its far cleaner and you can have all this crap aswell!

So if i declare war on every alliance in the universe i get a complete co-ord list. It's a bad idea fizzyxl. You don't declare war unless you know who you're attacking. Handing out a complete co-ord list ruins it.

[Tyroka]

Originally Posted by Conall

Does it really mater why they declared war, maybe it's because they have been attacked, maybe it's because they want the roids, maybe its because it benefits an alliance they are friendly with, or maybe they just don't like them. What ever the reason War was declared, if they want they can explain that on AD, but who will beleive any of it anyway.

my comment was merely an answer to this (hence why I quoted you and cut it off right there):

Originally Posted by Conall

If people see they don’t have the guts it opens them up to more attacks and potential wars. No BS on the AD forum with both sides spewing nonsense and everyone having to figure out who did and didn’t declare/
answer the war.

We won't get less bs on AD (perhaps other kind of BS like "the cowards didn't dare to declare war so we did it bla, bla, bla")

Originally Posted by Conall

Not really, because they can break a Nap at any time and it does not leave an entire alliance defenseless for 72 ticks like leaving an alliance would do. But if it is a problem remove the eta bonus for def and leave the rest.

well, yea but it still makes the cap on 100 members per alliance pretty useless, there's a slightly bigger risk of "members" leaving forming their own alliance but not much bigger.

Originally Posted by Conall

Frankly I think it would make politics more fluid as everyone can see who is NAPed in game. Granted it does not prevent out of game naps but they don't get the benefits that in game Nap provides.

yea in-game Nap (without -1 def <-- technically it's more than Nap then...) might not be a bad idea, could be an addition to banneds idea

[Conall]

Originally Posted by Tyroka

We won't get less bs on AD (perhaps other kind of BS like "the cowards didn't dare to declare war so we did it bla, bla, bla")

True, but hopefully people would have a more accurate picture of whats happening rather than relying AD, rumors and very suspect intel.

Originally Posted by Tyroka

well, yea but it still makes the cap on 100 members per alliance pretty useless, there's a slightly bigger risk of "members" leaving forming their own alliance but not much bigger.

True again, but if two or more alliances remained NAPed for any length of time it would be clear that only one of them was playing to win. The rest would be know as coat tailers and it would hurt their recruiting of top players. I mean who WANTS to play to be second best? I hope not many. I sure don't and would hang around in an alliance I knew played for second.

Originally Posted by Tyroka

yea in-game Nap (without -1 def <-- technically it's more than Nap then...) might not be a bad idea, could be an addition to banneds idea

Thats why I called it Blcok/NAP, but you may be right - I would need to think about any benefits and draw backs a bit more. In all likelyhood there are too many drawbacks, but I need to give it some more thought.

[fizzyxl]

Originally Posted by arbondigo

So if i declare war on every alliance in the universe i get a complete co-ord list. It's a bad idea fizzyxl. You don't declare war unless you know who you're attacking. Handing out a complete co-ord list ruins it.

well yeah you do, but only if they declare back... and if they did then all your members co-ords are given out.

its effectivly an official trading of co-ords to cut out middle men / spys

[arbondigo]

Originally Posted by fizzyxl

well yeah you do, but only if they declare back... and if they did then all your members co-ords are given out.

its effectivly an official trading of co-ords to cut out middle men / spys

spoils all the fun

[Kal]

everyone seems to be forgetting that you cna;t just declare war on anyone u want to delcare war on...

[Envious]

Originally Posted by Kal

everyone seems to be forgetting that you cna;t just declare war on anyone u want to delcare war on...

remind me again.. WHY?

[Conall]

Originally Posted by Kal

everyone seems to be forgetting that you cna;t just declare war on anyone u want to delcare war on...

Sure you can..... read my solution above. Ofc I don't think coords need to be swaped with my solution.

[mist]

you can only declare war on an alliance that's attacking you. so no, you can't.

[Conall]

Originally Posted by mist

you can only declare war on an alliance that's attacking you. so no, you can't.

you clearly didn't read then

[arbondigo]

Conall, we're discussing Banned's proposal here seeing as it's his thread, that's the one mist was referring to.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by arbondigo

Conall, we're discussing Banned's proposal here seeing as it's his thread, that's the one mist was referring to.

Discussing several different alternatives is fine, but if people don't specify it's usually fair to assume they're refering to the thread starting post.

That said, I don't see the point of some sort of system for war that doesn't change anything.

[Conall]

Originally Posted by Banned

That said, I don't see the point of some sort of system for war that doesn't change anything.

Originally Posted by Banned

The idea here is to allow alliances to 'step it up a notch' when fighting each other. The launch requirements are to require a bit of intel and balance things a bit.

You could even add a state of friendliness that allows you to declare war on someone who declares on an ally.

* I'm not entirely sure about this one, I suspect it's too easy to use it for bashing in cases like this.

My variation of your idea springs directly from what you said in your initial post. Alliances declaring war on each other does step things up a notch. My concern, apparently you thought of the possibility as well, is that it encourages bashing. I see clear possibilities for other abuses as well.

I am not clear why there is a problem with a straight up declaration of war, seems far more simple, there is no way to abuse it and it accomplishes the idea of letting enemies step it up a notch because of greater advantage of going to war with your enemy since there are greater rewards.

Originally Posted by arbondigo

Conall, we're discussing Banned's proposal here seeing as it's his thread, that's the one mist was referring to.

That’s why the prefix DISCUSS is on the topics. We can discuss the pros and cons of a proposal, offer alternatives, or we can have tunnel vision and see only the first idea. If that were the case then you might was well put a proposal up for an up or down vote rather than a discussion and debate.

[Dingo]

Assuming the fleets actually have to land to count in qty per 72 hrs, I like the idea.

[Orion Treet]

Dont matter if both sides have to agree or not, it just spoils a bit of the game, it becomes more and more run for you. No longer does intel need to be gathered, its all done for you..... Now you need good info on your enemy before you declare war on them, isn't that funner than having it al given to you???
What if people don't want their coords public knowlage? And the 'blocks' (yes there were blocks last round, just called differently ) will share all the coord lists, so only the most powerful one would have to declare war on say the main alliance in other block (say 1up last round), they'd get that advantage from attacking them, all coords, be able to share it with other alliances in their block, and bash them all into oblivion.
Some alliance benefit from having their members anonymous for first half or so of the round.

[mist]

i dislike the open declarations of war. however, sliding the scale so that smaller alliances need to have less fleets out might work.

[Kal]

Originally Posted by mist

i dislike the open declarations of war. however, sliding the scale so that smaller alliances need to have less fleets out might work.

i concur - could be something like - number_of_members/2 as the number of fleets that need to be hostile

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Dingo

Assuming the fleets actually have to land to count in qty per 72 hrs, I like the idea.

Good point, but surely this should put the number on the lower end the of the scales? Something like 15-20 landings in 72 hours?

[Kal]

what about getting to eta 1 rather than landing

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Kal

what about getting to eta 1 rather than landing

Terrible idea, that'd make attacking harder.

[mist]

why would being able to recall from an attack that was going to go pear shaped make attacking harder?

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Banned

Terrible idea, that'd make attacking harder.

eh???

i mean a launchis only counted if the fleets get to eta 1 rather than as above where they have to land - not many fleets land in a modern war if the sides are balenced

[Banned]

It makes attacking harder because holding until eta 1 makes it easier for people participating in the same galaxy attack to land.

[Kal]

isn;t it making attacking easier then if there is another reason to hold until eta 1? more chance of people getting through...

[Judge]

Originally Posted by Kal

read what banned just said to mist they can;t just keep war declared on each other unless they actually fight wach other

multiple waves of fake attacks ?

[Conall]

All these ways that this can get side ways is why I think a simple declaration makes sense. And this is just on what will constititue enough attacks to go to war.

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Judge

multiple waves of fake attacks ?

the game knows if an attack is a fake attack so they can be excluded from the count

[Orion Treet]

Originally Posted by Kal

the game knows if an attack is a fake attack so they can be excluded from the count

You can really attack and just pull.

[mist]

why would you attack and just pull, giving an alliance the ability to declare war on you?

[Kal]

Originally Posted by mist

why would you attack and just pull, giving an alliance the ability to declare war on you?

to setup a fake war cause u r crazy - however the soltuion is to make fleet shave to go until eta 1 to make it count as a launch

[mist]

i agree wtih jester that forcing fleets to go to eta 1 makes attacking harder. making them go to eta 4 seems about optimal