Beige Alliances and Formal Alliance Wars

[ataraxis]

Just a random idea that could create more tensions and excitement.

 

Alliances can now declare war on each other, which facilitates the following:

- War range is expanded (maybe to +100%/-33%)

- Increased infrastructure damage

- Automatic alliance vs alliance embargo.

- Defeated nations are not beiged and go straight to gray

- Possibly a shorter war cooldown than 7 days?

 

War score is a feature of these alliance wars and is a single number that begins at 0. Every time you win a war against an opposing nation, you gain war score proportional to their size relative to their alliance, creating a sort of tug-of-war battle (if the war score is favored in their side, you can bring it closer to your side). When the war score reaches some threshold, the war ends, and the losing alliance gets beiged, which affects color bonuses. (You can also end a war by a mutual agreement similar to trucing.) 

 

Beige is a color that alliances can choose to be in. Beige alliances do not get a color bonus but cannot be warred upon or declare war. There is no timer until you get kicked out of beige, so this could be a potential sanctuary mechanic for neutrals. (You can still individually declare war but you can't get the bonuses and such)

 

Other potential explorations:

1) Perhaps changing treasures to becoming a strictly alliance-owned thing may be a good idea. By coupling these ideas together, neutrals can effectively opt out from "treasure wars" and hope for a spawn.

2) Maybe increased military production while at war?

[Filthy Fifths]

Arrgh!

 

inb4 the neutrals hatred of the idea

[Ayayay]

[Jodo]

This is a terrible idea, and I don't even know where to start picking it apart.

[Clarke]

[fistofdoom]

I mean, you could go about it in a completely different direction and we could begin nit picking that instead.

[Arthur James]

the idea is terrible....why don't you try it 1st?

the most benefitical gain is the raider.

Edited February 5, 2015 by Arthur James

[naTia]

I like this idea, but I think the execution should go about differently. As a general basis, a slight increase in war score, and an auto embargo seem plausible. Perhaps an increased damage caused by ground battles could be implemented to make beiging worth it, but is not necessary. I think beiging are necessary and, while annoying for attackers, are required for the recovery of one's nation. I wouldn't hate to also see a cessation of all outside offensive wars to allow for more than three offensive wars against a single alliance nation.

 

My only negative response is a push towards a more formalized play-style which errs on the side of restricting customized actions. Also, the potential for abuse seems high on my agenda for such a change.

Edited February 5, 2015 by The Captain Nao

[ataraxis]

On insta-gray:

Well I noticed in previous wars, the strategy of "intentionally not beiging people" to do increased damage felt a bit off-putting, as well as the fact that nukes are entirely counterproductive in this regard. This fixes that, making people actually want to win wars instead of just trying to dance around the limits.

 

On treasures:

I think many of us agree that the individual treasure thing won't promote wars at all. Furthermore I feel that even if alliance bonuses are tacked onto the treasures, it becomes more of a "precision strike" venture (if anything happens at all). This encourages full-on alliance warfare which is likely the intended effect treasures should have had.

 

On neutrals:

Neutrals can opt out of this feature entirely. Or they can continue to maintain huge militaries that they are doing right now and keep their color bonus. This doesn't change anything in that regard.

 

On raiding:

Low-tier raiding would take a very long time to win such alliance wars if the opposing alliance is reasonably big. This is similar to the alliance bank raid mechanic: the smaller the nation proportional to the alliance, the smaller the proportion of bank raided. Furthermore, if the point of raiding is to gain money, increased infrastructure damage does not affect that amount (arguably it makes raiding less sustainable). This relation is also symmetric - you are also susceptible to increased damage and expanded war range (which is probably the biggest "safety net" that low-tier raiders have).

 

I'm certainly open to moderating the suggestion (e.g. only a subset of the featured perks listed above), but currently I'm just throwing out as many related possibilities.

[Atzuya]

Beige alliances can't have wars declared on them and yet their members can still declare war silly-nelly. No beige time limit. Huh. Losing color stock bonus is a small price to pay for this kind of nonsense.

 

Also, any alliances that likes to kick opponents into beige during a large-scale war certainly don't know what they're doing

 

1/10 need to be reworked

[ataraxis]

Of course this suggestion isn't a final product. I believe that the general concept however is useful in making the game more dynamic.
 

Also, any alliances that likes to kick opponents into beige during a large-scale war certainly don't know what they're doing

 
1) Beiging opponents is only bad because it limits the amount of damage that the opponent receives as a result of not being able to redeclare on them later. This mechanic expressly changes that (in the event of an formally declared alliance war), by making it so that nations that are beiged during such wars are instead instantly turned into gray, so that they can immediately be redeclared (by different people).
 

Beige alliances can't have wars declared on them and yet their members can still declare war silly-nelly.

2) First off, the beige designation for alliances only applies for alliance wars - in other words, you can still attack them individually. They as an alliance cannot be declared upon. Their members can be declared upon. They as an alliance cannot declare alliance wars. Their members can declare wars.
 

No beige time limit. Huh. Losing color stock bonus is a small price to pay for this kind of nonsense.

3) I intended this to be a mechanism for neutrals to not need to fuss with greater potential damages. It makes the color bonus more restrictive, which is apparently a stated goal in various other suggestions. Furthermore, as a beige alliance, you cannot acquire treasures through war, which here would be reworked into an alliance-wide asset.

 

[Aisha Greyjoy]

I like ONE of your ideas associated with alliance warfare.  Maybe because I already suggested it once before.

 

War range is expanded (maybe to +100%/-33%)

Edited February 5, 2015 by Aisha Greyjoy

[Jefferson Davis III]

I have to say that I do completely love the Idea of official alliance wars, but the way you have it set up is completely mind boggling and is really too complex. Sheepy should really take a look at that idea, but it should be made much more simple. I think I know how to make it much simpler. Let me begin.

Official Alliance wars: Declares a war between two or more alliances

For one alliance to declare war: 3 steps

1. The attacking alliance must have at least 1 leader, 1 hier, and 1 officer

2. At least three members must choose for the alliance to to go to war. One of these Must be the leader, war cannot be declared without the leader.

3. Once an alliance declares war, the defending alliance leader and officers are messaged that their alliance is under attack.

 

Simple enough. the first two steps are to prevent rogue officers from declaring wars but give a little bit of power to the officers, it also prevents the leader from dragging the alliance into a war.

 

When Fighting a alliance war: 2 things

1. All nations (in both alliance) that produce munitions will see a 150% increase in munitions production

2. All nations in the warring alliances can be attacked by any members of the other side, even if the two nations would normally be outside of their warring range.

 

There is room for improvement but I think that this will be a more solid and a little less complicate basis for alliance wars, let me know what you think.

[Shellhound]

Just a random idea that could create more tensions and excitement.

 

Alliances can now declare war on each other, which facilitates the following:

- War range is expanded (maybe to +100%/-33%)

- Increased infrastructure damage

- Automatic alliance vs alliance embargo.

- Defeated nations are not beiged and go straight to gray

- Possibly a shorter war cooldown than 7 days?

 

War score is a feature of these alliance wars and is a single number that begins at 0. Every time you win a war against an opposing nation, you gain war score proportional to their size relative to their alliance, creating a sort of tug-of-war battle (if the war score is favored in their side, you can bring it closer to your side). When the war score reaches some threshold, the war ends, and the losing alliance gets beiged, which affects color bonuses. (You can also end a war by a mutual agreement similar to trucing.) 

 

Beige is a color that alliances can choose to be in. Beige alliances do not get a color bonus but cannot be warred upon or declare war. There is no timer until you get kicked out of beige, so this could be a potential sanctuary mechanic for neutrals. (You can still individually declare war but you can't get the bonuses and such)

 

Other potential explorations:

1) Perhaps changing treasures to becoming a strictly alliance-owned thing may be a good idea. By coupling these ideas together, neutrals can effectively opt out from "treasure wars" and hope for a spawn.

2) Maybe increased military production while at war?

War range - not a terrible idea.

Increased infra damage - just stop, that's a !@#$ing awful idea.

auto alliance embargo - No. Buying resources from your enemy and then stealing it back is the greatest thing ever.

No beige - idk about this one

Shorter war cool down - meh.

 

Forcing wars to end at a certain time - !@#$ that noise. Just !@#$ing no. !@#$. That.

 

Giving entire alliances a peace mode? See above response^

[Placentica]

War ranges should be narrowed, not expanded.  We have more nations now and not a lack of targets.  +50/-25% should be fine.

[Jefferson Davis III]

War ranges should be narrowed, not expanded.  We have more nations now and not a lack of targets.  +50/-25% should be fine.

Not for me, my score is 400, ruffly, and I during alliance wars, I am unable to help fight the enemy and they cause trouble, like the 99 percent alliance, they attack all small members and I am unable to provide the necessary defense that an alliance should be able to offer, it makes since that members of an alliance should be able to attack anyone who is currently attacking their fellow members. 

[Shellhound]

I have to say that I do completely love the Idea of official alliance wars, but the way you have it set up is completely mind boggling and is really too complex. Sheepy should really take a look at that idea, but it should be made much more simple. I think I know how to make it much simpler. Let me begin.

Official Alliance wars: Declares a war between two or more alliances

For one alliance to declare war: 3 steps

1. The attacking alliance must have at least 1 leader, 1 hier, and 1 officer

2. At least three members must choose for the alliance to to go to war. One of these Must be the leader, war cannot be declared without the leader.

3. Once an alliance declares war, the defending alliance leader and officers are messaged that their alliance is under attack.

 

Simple enough. the first two steps are to prevent rogue officers from declaring wars but give a little bit of power to the officers, it also prevents the leader from dragging the alliance into a war.

 

When Fighting a alliance war: 2 things

1. All nations (in both alliance) that produce munitions will see a 150% increase in munitions production

2. All nations in the warring alliances can be attacked by any members of the other side, even if the two nations would normally be outside of their warring range.

 

There is room for improvement but I think that this will be a more solid and a little less complicate basis for alliance wars, let me know what you think.

1. And for alliances who don't follow that structure of government? What do they do?

2. Let's take all of interesting alliance drama out of the game, sounds like a solid plan.

3. Why are we giving enemy alliances a heads up?

 

1. This isn't a bad idea imo. It would cause market prices to go down which helps solve the issue of going to war being so detrimental, by going to war it potentially helps a current or future enemy as they can profit off of you.

2. No. If this were to happen an alliances top tier could entirely focus on an enemy's government. You would also get large alliances who could officially declare on a smaller alliance where they don't have much targets and just raid the !@#$ out of them. There's too much potential for abuse.