Actual alliance wars

[Ogaden]

I was thinking about this, what if you could as an alliance leader declare a state of alliance war against another alliance, where there's a victory counter that starts ticking.  For every war won (beige opponent) that counts as a victory, for every war lost that's a point against.  Once you accumulate enough victories minus losses you can impose terms on the losing alliance, picking one of the following:

 

1) Surrender entire bank

2) Forced off color (Alliance can't change back to previous color for 168 turns)

3) Regime change, new alliance owner and heir selected from existing membership, all current gov demoted to base member status, demoted members cannot be promoted to gov for 84 turns, new owner and heir must have been active in the last 24 hours.  Regime change can only occur once every 168 turns.

4) Reparations of 5% imposed on losing alliance membership for 84 turns (works like alliance taxes but goes to the victor's bank rather than yours).  Alliances cannot be forced to pay more than 25% in reparations so only 5 of these can be active at any one time.

5) Humiliation, notice of victor's choice is posted on losing alliance page that cannot be deleted for 84 turns

 

In addition to this, the alliance color turns beige for 24 turns, thus preventing any additional alliance wars from being declared on them.  After 24 turns the alliance color turns Gray and noone gets a color stock bonus until the alliance color is changed to one of the color spheres, unless they have been forced off all colors in which case they have to wait until one of those evictions expires.

Edited February 6, 2015 by Ogaden

[Clarke]

1) No

2) No, Alliances can already do that without in game mechanics

3) No, Alliances can already do that without in game mechanics

4) No, Alliances can already do that without in game mechanics

5) No, Alliances can already do that without in game mechanics

[fistofdoom]

all of those are too extreme to be implemented directly into mechanics

[MRBOOTY]

You started well, but most terms are extreme

The counter would be great, but negotiations for reparations should remain unseen

It would be nice to know however who "won" the war

So I support that idea, while the rest I adhore

Well adhore is too strong of a word

But to be clear, those consequences are a bit severe

But I like overall the idea here

[Shellhound]

I'd have to disagree with... well all of these. It should be left up to the alliances to decide who wins, who loses, who pays reps and how much, etc.

[Franz Von Dietrich]

I think that would have to be apart of a massive update, for this to even come into existance.

[Ren]

I d like the idea of an alliance declaring war on another, but only a means of keeping a "scorecard" that details win percentage and damage stats. I know some people track stats outside of the game, but it would be nifty to pull up an alliance's official "war record" and compare it to others in-game. 

[Arthur James]

1) No, absolutely not.

2) Forced off color (Alliance can't change back to previous color for 168 turns), they should become beige or gray until the recover is over..but i have no idea how this would work

3) Maybe, 

4) No, since you already take parts of the tribute from central bank once victory come.

5) No, even it is true, we can still leave the alliance and create one until it fade and disappeared.

 

the offers are benefits mainly for the aggressor

Edited February 6, 2015 by Arthur James

[Redrum]

I was thinking about this, what if you could as an alliance leader declare a state of alliance war against another alliance, where there's a victory counter that starts ticking.  For every war won (beige opponent) that counts as a victory, for every war lost that's a point against.  Once you accumulate enough victories minus losses you can impose terms on the losing alliance, picking one of the following:

 

1) Surrender entire bank

2) Forced off color (Alliance can't change back to previous color for 168 turns)

3) Regime change, new alliance owner and heir selected from existing membership, all current gov demoted to base member status, demoted members cannot be promoted to gov for 84 turns, new owner and heir must have been active in the last 24 hours.  Regime change can only occur once every 168 turns.

4) Reparations of 5% imposed on losing alliance membership for 84 turns (works like alliance taxes but goes to the victor's bank rather than yours).  Alliances cannot be forced to pay more than 25% in reparations so only 5 of these can be active at any one time.

5) Humiliation, notice of victor's choice is posted on losing alliance page that cannot be deleted for 84 turns

 

In addition to this, the alliance color turns beige for 24 turns, thus preventing any additional alliance wars from being declared on them.  After 24 turns the alliance color turns Gray and noone gets a color stock bonus until the alliance color is changed to one of the color spheres, unless they have been forced off all colors in which case they have to wait until one of those evictions expires.

Yes yes and more yes.  I really hate how everybody is so scared to lose in this game makes it no fun.  This would add a measure to the game not seen before because people are well no fun when it comes to reps in this game.  All we ever have is white peace and its stupid and boring.

[ataraxis]

Maybe this can be tied in with my suggestion.

[Aisha Greyjoy]

I like the color change thing.  It would give some alliances the ability to have a 10% color score, only if they are willing to wage war to do it.  And larger alliances don't necessarily get to win easilly, as they may not have many people in range of a smaller alliance.

[Nobeard]

The game needs more to separate it (especially its alliance politics) from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), and this would be a step in the right direction.

[ataraxis]

I like the color change thing.  It would give some alliances the ability to have a 10% color score, only if they are willing to wage war to do it.  And larger alliances don't necessarily get to win easilly, as they may not have many people in range of a smaller alliance.

 

Why not beige? 

[SoS]

The game needs more to separate it (especially its alliance politics) from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), and this would be a step in the right direction.

Not bad differences, tho. This is a player driven game. Needs to stay in that vein.

 

But, alliances stand to lose bank funds in individual losses. Still, need something to make beiging a good option. Maybe, make beige after a defeat shorter.

Edited February 7, 2015 by SoS

[Bilal the Great]

These.. actually a pretty neat idea.

 

If you're on the winning side.

[John Kern]

here is an idea to make alliance war each others.

 

- divide the map in area. (with each area giving some kind of bonus)

 

- alliances could try to gain control of the area (therefore starting a battle for the area where all members of an alliance could join in the fight against the alliance owning it.)

 

- alliances can only invade area that are next to area they already have. (first area being the one with the alliance headquarter.)

 

- after a battle (be it a victory or a defeat), there would be a cooldown where the area cant be attack, to allow the owner to rebuild it's defense. (like it happend already for players)

 

- members of an alliance could contribute to the defenses of an area by placing some of his troop in the area. (like irl, where some nation contribute in a coalition by sending some plane while other nation send infantry.)

 

- alliance that got their headquarter's area invaded could either relocate it's headquarter to another owned area or pay a small tribute to the invader (if their headquarter was the last area they owned)

 

that way :

 

- there would be some more conflict in the game (and therefore some more wars)

 

- the alliances would be able to fight  "alliance vs alliance" battle and not many "player vs player" battle.

 

- great player, that have huge armed force could divide it into smaller armies to defend many regions. (giving them more challenge than just "defending himself")

 

- with something like 500 area, it would be difficult to conquer the whole world and every alliance could have their own area for their headquarter. (there would need more than 500 alliances to break the rule of 1 headquarter per area.)

Edited February 8, 2015 by John Kern

[Jefferson Davis III]

I have a different Idea for alliance wars, make it very simple.

To declare war, The leader must declare war, if there are multiple leaders, all leaders must declare war. There would be a button on your alliance page, click it, and it will take you to a page and you type in the alliance you want to start a war with, check the name, then click Vote for war. If all leaders choose to declare, then the war begins. 

Upon war starting, the leaders, heirs, and officers all receive an automatic notification that war has begun. Also, both alliance instantly will be embargoed from one another.

When fighting the war, There will be no war range for all the nations in the warring alliances. That way, any member can attack any enemy. This is more realistic and would promote reason for people to prevent wars but the potential profit from the war would encourage war instead.

Alliance wars have no time limit, they go until one side surrenders.

To surrender an alliance war, 2/3 rds of the the leaders must go to the alliance war tab and click surrender, at which point, the leaders of the other alliance will receive the request for peace and then they can choose to end the war or not. if there is only 2 leaders, then both must ask to surrender, if only one, then that one must surrender.

The two alliances make the terms for surrender, no need to actually put mechanics in the game for that.

It looks complex but I think it is actually simple once you think about it. I think this would be very good. It would also allow for large alliance members to defend small alliance members during wars but not during raids. Raids would be unchanged by this system and members can still raid members of another alliance without creating a war, unless leadership decides otherwise.

sorry, large text was a little too big.

[Shellhound]

Yes yes and more yes.  I really hate how everybody is so scared to lose in this game makes it no fun.  This would add a measure to the game not seen before because people are well no fun when it comes to reps in this game.  All we ever have is white peace and its stupid and boring.

You hate how everyone's scared to lose and by changing this you want losing a war even more detrimental? All we ever have is white peace because the game isn't even a year old yet, you're not going to see massive reps like in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) and thank !@#$ing god for that. There's a reason you only see big wars there once a year and massive reps are a part of the problem.

 

here is an idea to make alliance war each others.

 

- divide the map in area. (with each area giving some kind of bonus)

 

- alliances could try to gain control of the area (therefore starting a battle for the area where all members of an alliance could join in the fight against the alliance owning it.)

 

- alliances can only invade area that are next to area they already have. (first area being the one with the alliance headquarter.)

 

- after a battle (be it a victory or a defeat), there would be a cooldown where the area cant be attack, to allow the owner to rebuild it's defense. (like it happend already for players)

 

- members of an alliance could contribute to the defenses of an area by placing some of his troop in the area. (like irl, where some nation contribute in a coalition by sending some plane while other nation send infantry.)

 

- alliance that got their headquarter's area invaded could either relocate it's headquarter to another owned area or pay a small tribute to the invader (if their headquarter was the last area they owned)

 

that way :

 

- there would be some more conflict in the game (and therefore some more wars)

 

- the alliances would be able to fight  "alliance vs alliance" battle and not many "player vs player" battle.

 

- great player, that have huge armed force could divide it into smaller armies to defend many regions. (giving them more challenge than just "defending himself")

 

- with something like 500 area, it would be difficult to conquer the whole world and every alliance could have their own area for their headquarter. (there would need more than 500 alliances to break the rule of 1 headquarter per area.)

And suddenly the game gets turned into a text-based RTS game.

 

The game needs more to separate it (especially its alliance politics) from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), and this would be a step in the right direction.

There's already plenty of coded differences, let the players decide the outcome of the game, don't force it on them.

[Kastor (Old Account)]

I like this. It would make war more open between nations because it offers something if you win. Right now UPN and VE could go to war, but it would mean nothing because they would just both lose Infra and stuff, but not get anything from it. This is a step in the right direction for making war better for the game. I like it.

[Malice]

What if the alliance leaders can just declare war on other alliances which sets all members (non-beige) into a state of war with each other until an alliance peace treaty is signed?

 

Have an overall scorecard etc for the war, but maybe not all those carthaginian peace terms. Have alliance war record on the alliance page of course.