Permanent alliances

So my suggestion is - Make permanent alliances, because most of the people end up backstabbing you in a game, when you don't expect it - If they have capital city near yours, you make alliance with them, hoping you would conquire world together, but shit ends up backwards.

Need your opinion about this.

That would remove a lot of diplomacy from the game which it is already lacking, you should always be able to break Alliances in the game, even if it can be annoying when you get backstabbed.
It's annoying, but it's part of the game, and killing these backstabbers is even more fun when you taste the victory while burying them in the ground.

Escrito por Pyrrhus, 10.10.2013 at 13:18

That would remove a lot of diplomacy from the game which it is already lacking, you should always be able to break Alliances in the game, even if it can be annoying when you get backstabbed.
It's annoying, but it's part of the game, and killing these backstabbers is even more fun when you taste the victory while burying them in the ground.

Exactly.

You could have games where permanent alliances is an option you can select just like how long it takes to capture a capital.

No. Maybe as a game option. But not as standard.

But backstabbing got me so much sp ==)

Escrito por tophat, 10.10.2013 at 16:46

But backstabbing got me so much sp ==)

I never betrayed players that were my allie. That might explain one of few reasons why I have low sp :/

And I agree with grimm

Amateurs. Just you against the world, you against the allyfagging world. That gets you SP.

How about No.

What would I do if my ally started taking my empty cities on me? Normally I would break alliance if he wouldn't stop, what would I do if that happened with perm alliances?

Ehh....I don't really like the sound of this, what if your main ally gets attacked by someone you allied but aren't as close to?

No.

To all of you saying ...what if my ally this, what if my ally that? That is the point of permanent alliance ...ally people you trust, send peace offers to others.
All of you saying things about the diplomacy lacking options ...well you are probably damn UN players or something, but again THE DAMN PEACE OFFER OPTION.
So peace offer options finaly having some meaning, betraying basicly none existant, so no more frustration about that, and ally faging being worthless ....well i can see why so many would be against this.

Goblin

Just make it an option?

I take back y vote on no, as an option it would great. no ally fagging.

Yes.

Escrito por Guest, 11.10.2013 at 14:50

To all of you saying ...what if my ally this, what if my ally that? That is the point of permanent alliance ...ally people you trust, send peace offers to others.
All of you saying things about the diplomacy lacking options ...well you are probably damn UN players or something, but again THE DAMN PEACE OFFER OPTION.
So peace offer options finaly having some meaning, betraying basicly none existant, so no more frustration about that, and ally faging being worthless ....well i can see why so many would be against this.

Goblin

This.
"Strategic diplomacy"?
Exists the "Peace" way.

I think that having permanent allies makes the choise of an ally more strategical. And forward-looking.

I personally don't like the idea of permanent alliances, just because it's too unrealistic and betraying allies is a funny part of the game, imo, which adds a lot strategy to it.

However, I do think, it would be cool if it was possible to make peace offers too, instead of just ally requests, right at the start of the game. At the beginning, everything is often so unsure and you often ally people, right near you, just because you don't know who is going to attack you and who not (they could attack you all at once).

If you would be able to make peace at the first turn (or if the already established peace would just stay), this also already would prevent a lot of "dirty backstabbing" and just unneccesary allying.

Escrito por Morbo, 12.10.2013 at 06:18

Yes.

Escrito por Guest, 11.10.2013 at 14:50

To all of you saying ...what if my ally this, what if my ally that? That is the point of permanent alliance ...ally people you trust, send peace offers to others.
All of you saying things about the diplomacy lacking options ...well you are probably damn UN players or something, but again THE DAMN PEACE OFFER OPTION.
So peace offer options finaly having some meaning, betraying basicly none existant, so no more frustration about that, and ally faging being worthless ....well i can see why so many would be against this.

Goblin

This.
"Strategic diplomacy"?
Exists the "Peace" way.

I think that having permanent allies makes the choise of an ally more strategical. And forward-looking.

what about you 2 learn how to play?

Escrito por The Taliban, 12.10.2013 at 09:23

what about you 2 learn how to play?

Sigh..

A piece of this community needs humility.
And admins cant implement this.

No, there are team games.

Permanent alliance doesn't exist in the real world - and, it's horrible to say this, war is even too real (so this game cannot take too much from imagination).

Peace is now a good way to save time and prepare yourself. Use more it instead.
I agree in making it as an option, but backstabbers, as bankrupt, atrocity, violence, weapons are parts of the war.

Even if annoying and ecc.

Allyfaggers would became definitively lethal if permanents, though.
And sometimes you find allies that don't help you or help enemy - you can't know it if you don't know the player, that is to say you should play only with the same players everytime.
In that case, if they start taking your empty cities (in those cases you have no troops near those cities) you are in trap: breaking alliance can be a move that saves you from being back stabbed heavily.

If you are fed up with getting backstabbed, then just play so that you can't get backstabbed. I.e. always also have a close eye on your allies, and watch if they have a huge stack near you, so that you can prepare yourself against it, soon enough. Enemy list those who you think you clearly can't trust, focus on making much SP, and rather finish games by finishing players, instead of merely winning through SP. And also make peace with people, of course.

I personally find leavers much more annoying than betrayers or backstabbers. And simply because they are so rampant, it is always best to play so that you are absolutely not reliant on your allies. I like it very much to also play Naval Commander with UK or something from time to time, and just have Germany or whatever as an ally, who cares about the mainland of Europe and the East, while I take care of America. However, it is sadly something which you shouldn't do (at least not if you not play with friends), because as soon as you are dependent on someone, you already lost big chances to win the game.

Escrito por Guest, 12.10.2013 at 18:44

Escrito por Kompass, 12.10.2013 at 16:47

Permanent alliance doesn't exist in the real world - and, it's horrible to say this, war is even too real (so this game cannot take too much from imagination).

Peace is now a good way to save time and prepare yourself. Use more it instead.
I agree in making it as an option, but backstabbers, as bankrupt, atrocity, violence, weapons are parts of the war.

Even if annoying and ecc.

Allyfaggers would became definitively lethal if permanents, though.
And sometimes you find allies that don't help you or help enemy - you can't know it if you don't know the player, that is to say you should play only with the same players everytime.
In that case, if they start taking your empty cities (in those cases you have no troops near those cities) you are in trap: breaking alliance can be a move that saves you from being back stabbed heavily.

So you people dont whant your allies to take your empty cities (who you can protect with one unit) but you are fine with that same ally stabing you in the back and using his forces against you.
Not helping you you? ...who says he has to. Helping your enemy ...with money im guessing? Better to fight one, funded by your ally enemy, then to fight two enemies.

btw. please stop comparing real life war with this game. I dont think real life has seen so much betraying and scumbags as i have seen in this game.

Germany invade russia in 1941 having a non-aggression pact, and they without a declaring war only start take land with any advise, backstabbing is normal in all wars.

This game no is real life but in all strategic games have real life factors like diferents brains whose command differents armies or diplamacy or obiusly backstab

Please no fucking permanent allies

Yes, Goblin I was only trying to say what lJoker said.
Exactly, it is one of my reasons against it.

And it's true that you can save cities with 1 unit, but in late game in small maps or in ancient worlds, when you have 20 cities in your front line and you need all that 20 units for a whole power, you would need to empty them even if for 1-2 turns.

But you are of course more expert about these dinamics !

If this does get implemented (Which im on the fence on), we would have to change the ally end system.

If everyone agrees to ally end, but one troll refuses to ally another person, then it just becomes a very long, a very boring waiting game.

Escrito por EpicRice, 15.10.2013 at 20:05

If this does get implemented (Which im on the fence on), we would have to change the ally end system.

If everyone agrees to ally end, but one troll refuses to ally another person, then it just becomes a very long, a very boring waiting game.

Oh a troll huh? What if they are winning and do not want to accept a draw?

Escrito por Xenosapien, 16.10.2013 at 09:09

Escrito por EpicRice, 15.10.2013 at 20:05

If this does get implemented (Which im on the fence on), we would have to change the ally end system.

If everyone agrees to ally end, but one troll refuses to ally another person, then it just becomes a very long, a very boring waiting game.

Oh a troll huh? What if they are winning and do not want to accept a draw?

That too but I was thinking more of say America and China refusing to ally each other and it's midnight. I've played many games in which everyone wants to ally except for 1 or 2 people in which usually everyone just kills off or threatens the person because everyone is tired and wants to go to sleep.

Escrito por EpicRice, 16.10.2013 at 12:22

Escrito por Xenosapien, 16.10.2013 at 09:09

Escrito por EpicRice, 15.10.2013 at 20:05

If this does get implemented (Which im on the fence on), we would have to change the ally end system.

If everyone agrees to ally end, but one troll refuses to ally another person, then it just becomes a very long, a very boring waiting game.

Oh a troll huh? What if they are winning and do not want to accept a draw?

That too but I was thinking more of say America and China refusing to ally each other and it's midnight. I've played many games in which everyone wants to ally except for 1 or 2 people in which usually everyone just kills off or threatens the person because everyone is tired and wants to go to sleep.

Yes, I have been victim to that once in quick :|. From then on I stopped playing large games in quick and instead in casual.

I m for permanent alliance,because there are too many players whom use this as a strategy,to previously backstab you later in game,when they're cumfortable enough to do it.
Alliance must be stay as an option to counter a too strong opponent,and not a sort of pause during the player gather his forces to ruin you later in his plan.
And what about these farming alliance where the only finality is to grab some points in the end of the game?
For me,those practices are the pain in the ass of the game