Jump to content
CitrusK

Alliance War

Recommended Posts

So, I would not be surprised if this has already been stated, or even uttered word for word as I'm about to put it. But, going through to that would be quite the pain, and since there has been nothing spoke about it, I doubt it had passed. So.... let's talk about Alliance Wars... yay? 

1. Declarations of War

This is going to be the base of the rest of my suggestions. But, basically, it allows the leadership of an alliance (heirs and leaders,) to declare war on an alliance. However, neither side will be able to attack for two turns (not one, because if it's one, we're going to get war declarations a minute before a turn, and that would defeat the purpose.)  Doing this will cause each alliance to be at war. During which, each side is allowed to send a peace offer, but to be accepted, it has to be accepted by every member of the leadership (heirs and leaders). Any larger (by score) protectorate with the defending alliance will be dragged into the war, any alliance with an MDP with the defending alliance will be dragged into the war. Any alliances with an MDP, ODOAP, or MDOAP with the attacking side, will be sent a popup notification on the alliance control panel. Any member of leadership will be allowed to accept the invitation, and only one will be required. 

Side note, if an alliance gets declared on by one alliance (and their allies), no other alliance will be allowed to declare on them for at least six turns (half of a day). Also, while the declaration is being drafted up (the two turn wait), neither side can be declared on, nor declare wars. No offensive wars towards any nations involved with the upcoming, nor any wars with an external alliance, for those two turns. 

2. Effects of Declaring War

By declaring war the proper way, you have declared war and voila, you get an advantage over your enemy. By going through with the declaration, the aggressors  get +1 MAP starting off, and for the first day of alliance combat, the aggressors get +10% infrastructure and causalities and +5% success rate on espionage missions.

3. No declaration of War?

This will only be activate if a third or more of the members of an alliance declare war on members of another alliance. The MDP's and protectorates of the defending alliance will, of course, be involved immediately. However, the allies of the aggressive side, MDP or no, will not be able to join the war until one of the those allies starts declaring war. Also, if the an alliance gets declared on, no alliance can start drafting against them, until six turns after the thirty-three percent member count was reached (of course, the alliance that is hitting them may declare as many wars as they want on them). (E.X. So, imagine TGH and Empyrea have an MDP. Empyrea starts an aggressive war without the declaration stage. TGH will have to declare on the targets of Empy, as they will be unable to attack without it. They will also have to wait six turns before they can hit the target. 

4. Effects of not declaring in advance.

By not declaring war, you get a wee bit of a punishment. The attackers get 5% increase in infrastructure destroyed. But, the attackers will take 10% more casualties. Once the one-third requirement is met, the defending alliance gets +2 MAPS. No change will occur to espionage missions. 

5. Blockades

If 50% of an alliance is blockaded, their bank gets "closed off." What I mean about this, it basically means that they will be unable to send money from their alliance bank to any outsider, and they will only be able to withdrawal money to alliance members. However, they will still be able to receive resources from the greater world. Furthering that thought process, I was thinking about disallowing any alliance member in war, to send out more than 5% of what they had six turns ago, to the outside world. They will only be able to send a trade for a resource every six turns (they could have a trade for every resource out, but they wouldn't be able to send out another trade for any specific resource until after six turns after their most recent sale/buy), however, they will still be able to send all of their money and resources to their alliance bank if required. 

6. Peace offers.

As previously mentioned, both sides will be able to send peace. I was thinking about making it a required, 100% of leadership, to accept peace. However, that number could change to fifty percent, or seventy five. However, I was thinking of a thirty-six hour time to respond to a peace offer, before the peace offer vanishes. If war ends to an NAP for a certain month, neither alliance will be able to dispel the NAP, and the NAP goes to each member of the people in the war. Also, one alliance will not be able to hit the protectorate of one of the alliances they were in a war with. The peace offers could be a "page," or really a selection, like a bank transfer. It would allow an alliance to demand a certain amount of (enter resource here)*. Also, a peace deal could force an alliance down to a certain amount of players for a set amount of time. However, the timer runs out, when half of the NAP has passed (for example, if an alliance lost and were promised 6 months NAP, three months later, they would be able to go back to getting players). 

* So, a thought of mine, I will admit, I doubt this was actually mine, I think Joshua Keller has some amount of influence on this idea, but it would be cool for an alliance to be able to tax an alliance for resources. For example, if they owed ... alliance 25000 Munitions, every Munition they received or was put into the bank, would immediately go straight to ...'s alliance bank.

 

So, that's all I want to type down, it's already taken enough time as it is. If you have any comments on this idea, please feel free to tell me. If you see any errors, feel free to tell me, if you think there's an error, or if my words don't make sense, feel free to tell me, I'll try to clarify any issues. Thank you in advance, and thank you for reading this. 

  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we should stick with the current system instead of adding all that complexity to it? War isn't, and probably shouldn't be something so easily definable by mechanics in this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.