Jump to content

Treaties/Beige/War Slot Filling


Cjfly
 Share

Recommended Posts

This would utilize the in-game treaties and make them more useful. It would also help with Beige and
War Slot filling dilemma as it would balance it out for at least alliances but also encourage non allied
nations to join an alliance for better protection.

You would need to enforce all MD's with game mechanics, like NAP/PIAT's are in where you cannot attack
all signing parties thus preventing allied/friendly from war slot filling and of course giving the
protection they are meant to give.

Create 3 new Treaties:

                      1) Declaration Of War (DOW)

                        :one sided approval treaty that would initiate immediately

                        :Only 1 DOW initiated at any given time for alliances involved
                         (Thus ability to create several fronts with an alliance and forcing
                         Alliances to have MD's signed prior to a DOW or risk splitting alliances
                         into separate wars to prevent them all joining 1 war)
                         
                        :Time sensitive (ex.30/60/? days) unless Peace Treaty Signed.

                        :Defending Alliance including their signed MD's/Prot's/Defensive Aid
                         would get the DOW including the aggressor automatically. The Aggressors MD's
                         join with Defensive Aid/Optional Aggression treaty

                        :Inability for any nation/alliance not part of the DOW to attack nations
                         on either side of the DOW

                        :Inability to leave alliances


                     2) Defensive Aid/ Optional Aggression

                        :Reliant on a DOW

                        :Would allow any alliance not part of a current DOW or any MD's
                         to sign a (ex,temporary MD treaty) for either defender or aggressor
                         that would be approved by the requested alliance and put themselves
                         & their treaty partners into that war ultimately coming to the
                         aid of one side.(approving spy alliances would be the fault of
                         the alliance that approved the Defensive Aid Treaty so you better
                         know and trust the Aid you are approving cause you can't blame
                         game mechanics over stupidity)

                        :Inability to attack signed partners Like a NAP/PIAT

                        :Inability to leave alliance

                        :Inability to revoke treaty
                       

                     3) Peace Treaty

                        :Cool Down period before treaty can be manually revoked (ex. 5/10/? Days)

                        :Inability to attack signed partners

                        :Can only be signed if a DOW is active
    
                        :Can only be signed by Aggressor & Defending Alliance of a DOW.

                        :DOW & Defensive Aid treaties would automatically be revoked

                        :Peace Treaty automatically initiated to all involved alliances once signed


All alliances/nations have the ability to war dec anyone at anytime but with these Treaties an
Alliance does have the threat of a DOW from another alliance making any attack on an alliance a
cautious and strategic one. Preventing anyone else from joining in if a DOW is declared unless they sign
a Treaty to join the current conflict/DOW or try and convince their friends to sign and come to the aid
would slow rogue alliances/griefers but also is a risk for the aggressor cause who knows what friends
that rogue alliance has hidden as a DOW could ultimately backfire.

This would eliminate war slot filling and give nations the ability to beige properly and rebuild to
make a proper comeback and not get blitzed for mths on end without a strategic way to stop it.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3

lQwIisV.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unnecessary formatting. This is what happens when people do not learn proper word processing.

Unnecessary suggestions. We have enough treaties and to my knowledge trying to hit allies would result in an error. We also don't need another reason for people to just sign as many treaties as they can because it looks cool...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Deulos said:

Unnecessary formatting. This is what happens when people do not learn proper word processing.

Unnecessary suggestions. We have enough treaties and to my knowledge trying to hit allies would result in an error. We also don't need another reason for people to just sign as many treaties as they can because it looks cool...

Please tell me what treaties we have that are of actual use? NAP/PIAT, That's it. This is Politics & War, Not just War and what goes hand in hand with politics and war "treaties, workable, usable Treaties.

What is the in-game process to declare war as of right now on an alliance, that's right, there is non. You just randomly start attacking and hopefully someone posted the DOW in the forums or you're in your discord channel.

The formatting was necessary to mark key points and to insure those key points weren't washed out in an attempt to explain or get the point across as easy as possible since missing one thing in coding could be a game breaker or leave it open for abuse.

This idea wasn't for the cool look or cosmetics but to actually make treaties usable since they are part of politics & of course limit war slot filling, Beige mechanic abuse since Beige abuse is really only the concern of alliances in large wars.

If you have constructive criticism then don't hesitate to respond with it as I will be more then happy to accept it. How is one to respond when you take nothing from the suggestion then you respond with things that have nothing to do with the initial suggestion Like spouting your superiority of word processing, Giving wrong info about current game mechanics oh and trying to quote me as if the entire suggestion was for cosmetic purposes.

P&W.png

lQwIisV.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@dtc justice   being blown up is part of any game and with all the wars I have been apart of in this game i at least get 50% of the damage considering the aggressor gets at least an extra 25-50% damage just for winning a war and since the aggressor if 3 attacks at once will almost always win, so not a real loss to me since I never instigated and cause just as much damage but my statement is just as it stands. NO person should in any fact have an over whelming advantage over the other & with the current Politics & War the advantage is given to the aggressor at an astounding 99% success rate. The only tactical advantage as of today is you hit someone with 3 accounts and they have no chance so P&W encourages alt accounting/auto scripting then complain when people report such abuses. So apparently suggesting properly balanced mechanics and algo's is considered being salty in your eyes or are you just salty that someone unlike yourself has higher then a grade 9 lvl education that also plays this game????

 

Edited by Cjfly
  • Downvote 3

lQwIisV.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Cjfly said:

@dtc justice   being blown up is part of any game and with all the wars I have been apart of in this 

 

During trial of tiers, bk sphere full blitzed us, specifically bk near slotted rose. We flipped the war on them within a day and we very clearly won the first round, we had less members than bk. I guess we're the 1%? The aggressor should have a clear advantage, with the chance of a defensive comeback through coordination and planning. 

If there isn't a clear advantage for the aggressor, there would never be any global wars. But im sure you would be happy with that coming from RnR.

Also, you're saying I have a 9th grade education? Dude, you have crazy long run on sentences lolol.

Edited by dtc justice
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dtc justice said:

If there isn't a clear advantage for the aggressor, there would never be any global wars.

So what your saying is plundering isn't enough so you want double destruction on every win then plundering and double destruction isn't enough so you also want a 99% win odds or else you would never declare war and people wouldn't play the game. "That's Crazy". I'm not saying it should be a 50/50 scenario cause the aggressor would always have the upper hand in coordination & planning since they are hitting first but the current balance should be somewhat fixed to allow the possibility of a defensive turn around. This is why we are in our current situation with players doing nothing to beige or war slot filling to get longer beige time because they can't do nothing but waste their time trying to counter.

Edited by Cjfly

lQwIisV.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Cjfly said:

So what your saying is plundering isn't enough so you want double destruction on every win then plundering and double destruction isn't enough so you also want a 99% win odds or else you would never declare war and people wouldn't play the game. "That's Crazy". I'm not saying it should be a 50/50 scenario cause the aggressor would always have the upper hand in coordination & planning since they are hitting first but the current balance should be somewhat fixed to allow the possibility of a defensive turn around. This is why we are in our current situation with players doing nothing to beige or war slot filling to get longer beige time because they can't do nothing but waste their time trying to counter.

In a lot of global wars the sphere that starts the war wins like half of the time. You need to have it set so that the aggressor has a far better chance of success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

tS and friends rolled in on Grumpy and Guardian last war, and we were able to pretty soundly beat them until NPO rolled in and turned the tide back in their favor.

back in the day, when people knew they were about to get hit in a war they had no chance of winning, they would strike first to try to take advantage, and would still lose.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

tS and friends rolled in on Grumpy and Guardian last war, and we were able to pretty soundly beat them until NPO rolled in and turned the tide back in their favor.

back in the day, when people knew they were about to get hit in a war they had no chance of winning, they would strike first to try to take advantage, and would still lose.

 

Well, either way, the war is won or lost long before the first actual declaration. There still has to be a first strike advantage though, since even if the war is lost, you still gotta try for whatever advantages you can pull outta the hats.

Besides, paranoia = fun :D

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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