Domination Game

Re multiple alliances - I joined one game where there were 4 or 5 allies against 1 other. There seems little point in that. Should alliances perhaps be limited to just 2? Any views?

Its a fair point... although when I originally wrote the alliance system it only allowed two people in an alliance, but some members complained.

Might be the case that I cannot win on this one.

Would it be possible to stipulate the no. of allies in the game set-up ie none, 1 or 2, or unlimited or even random?

You could, but that would start leading back to another problem I had with the original version of the game - some pages (like creating a game) where too complicated for some people.

If possible, I would quite like to reduce the number of options and keep the game simple to play (while the code can be extremely complex to keep it simple).

I would like to know who's allied with whom. I think it should be somehow visible in game map or allies should be grouped in game info screen.
I think it should be useful assistance if deciding, which actions to take in game.
And helps decide, is it sensible to join game, where for example, is already 4 .. 7 people allied with each other in a pointless game.

Is this situation possible:
A and B are allies.
C appears in game and starts to fight with B. Then A joins with C to gather intel.
---
What, if adding rule:
If A anb B are allies.
And C vants to join with B.
Then both A and B should accept C. Othervise will be no alliance. And if accepted, they all will live happily ever after.

Another solution to discuss:
What if pressing 'Get Reinforcements' button, triggers my ally putton too. <- This is really nice.
And I would like to see my ally battalions movements and get his reports also.

Is It possible, to add game new diplomatic options:
- 'non-agression pact' (beside 'alliance') - where pact member cant attack eachother a fixed length of action turns
- 'pre alliance pact' also fixed length of action turns, which is obligatory to precede a real 'alliance', where members actions against eachother is allowed, but which automatically triggers the end of 'pre alliance pact'.

OK, a few points there wy_mentat,

With the alliance example, taking that A+B were allied, then C sends an alliance invitation to A, if A accepts, the current A+B alliance will be broken. On the other hand if A was to offer the alliance, then C could join the current A+B alliance, so A+B+C would now be allied.

Hope that makes sense... a few too many variables there. For the showing of the current allies, a good idea... will look into adding that soon.

As to the reinforcements, I still feel that is getting too close to a member playing two accounts... for those single players in the game, they wont have someone else helping them gain reinforcements when its inconvenient for them to login. As an alliance is already creating quite an advantage for those players, do they need any help?

NOTE: for those who consider running two account in a single game, and I catch you (or I get reports of you doing this) I will warn you first, then watch your activity, if it appears that you continue, your account will be deleted. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but if you're going to cheat, then what is the point in playing?

For the diplomatic options, what does everyone else think? Personally I think its adding complexity which may be OK for the experienced player, but might cause allot of confusion for the new members.

Sorry to be quite negative here wy_mentat, I really do appreciate your thoughts... I just like to make is very difficult for changes to be incorporated (as tiki will confirm), so only the really good changes, which can stand the test of time, will work.

:-)

Pre-alliance pact isn't as helpful as it may seem... There is the scenario of "Finish attacks against A, accept A's alliance" but if that happens to you (A), you need to pick better allies than random aggressive people.

Also, getting Krang to include it would be more difficult than simply living with the slight abuse of treaty.

Perhaps planned troop movements between allies could appear on the reports page? This might prevent sneak attacks by an ally suddenly changing his/her alliance (or at least give some warning)

Emma, that's the best idea I've heard since the last time I had an idea. And that's saying a lot. ;)

Here is what Emma sees:
Ukraine      Scandinavia      7      20:00:24 06/11/2006

Scandinavia's owner should get a report:
*      (7) Scandinavia    emma      04/11/2006 00:08:15      Delete

The difference could be between the brackets/parentheses. Brackets = [enemy], parentheses = (ally).

emma is going to assist Scandinavia
Originating from Ukraine
On Monday 6th of November 2006 at 20:00:24
With 7 battalions

I still dont like situation, where I allied only with B. But B somehow manages to get me allied with C and D - without my acceptance. OK, I can leave alliance, but this might not be a good solution either.

I do agree with wy_mentat about multiple alliances. Unfortunately you can't leave an alliance unless invited to do so, and that may not be the alliance you want

As for wy_mentat's complaint, I do not see any solutions to fix/replace that. It can be annoying, with the point-split and all, but I suppose it is only yet another reason to plan alliances better than allying with the first nation who sends you an invitation.

At the moment the alliance system has been set-up so that leaving an alliance is quite difficult... you need someone else to pull you out of that alliance. This is to try and stop two people allying, then one of the players turning around and attacking when they know their ally is at their weakest point (with the added knowledge of knowing where all their battalions lye).

However in regards to your ally randomly inviting people, well the point of alliances is that you do have to trust them... which I suppose brings up the possibility of allowing players to leave alliances to then "stick a knife in the back" of their old ally (its been done in war before).

I find myself against making betrayal so easy. It would become much more commonplace, especially near the ends of games where one ally gained more land on the enemy.

The current method requires those players to become conspirators, requiring a third party to invite themselves away, without something so blunt as plainly leaving an alliance.

Also, it's currently not worth turning on an single ally (point-wise) since you would be required to join with yet another player.

My favourite gameplay method is selecting an ally who will take all of the casualties for you, and hopefully get eliminated before the end of the game. I therefore allied with Zudokorn in game 1.

....it didn't seem to work in game 1 though...

I had to fight an alliance to the north and a superpower to the south... But hey, at least I didn't have to fight a force to the immediate west.

Does anybody have any thoughts on a voting system to vote unwanted members out of an alliance?

It could be an anonymous method... Checkboxes on the far right of your alliance members names in your alliance display would keep track of which members you wish to exclude.

When more than half of the alliance members check the same member for removal, that member would be kicked from the alliance.

Sounds good but...Alliance A+B invite C, find out C's battalion numbers, vote C out of the alliance, and then attack C.....(or am I just a devious little b***h!)

Ah, but C learns about A and B as soon as C accepts the invitation.

I would like following Create new game options:
Max Allies: 2

and so on
Max Members: 15
Start Battalions: 20
Action Delay: 180 Seconds
Reinforcements Delay: 15 Seconds

The alliance system has been changed. Why? I prefered it before when your new ally wasn't also your ally's new ally.

Sorry ryacko, the old system only allowed each member to only have one ally... this was too restrictive (or so people told me).

The new system allows alliances to be as large as you want, but seems like its too easy to get an alliance set-up.

So how about... if person A and B are allied, and person A invites person C, before that invite is sent, person B has to confirm?

----

As to limiting the alliance size in a game, wy_mentat, I think it should perhaps be an all or nothing approach... maybe a tick box to say "yes alliances are allowed", otherwise they are forbidden (on a per game basis).

The reason being is that setting a maximum number of allies in an alliance is perhaps giving the game creator too much control (whereby that person might not even know what they are selecting).

I had someone trying to ally with me who was allied with my enemy. What do I do?

In that instance, I would decline the alliance and try to defeat your enemy, but you may want to possibly gain a win in your 1st game. Have you considered an alliance with other players who might be able to help?

PS, Welcome to Domination....!

Krang: "So how about... if person A and B are allied, and person A invites person C, before that invite is sent, person B has to confirm?"

This sounds good. No need to limit the alliance size.

It sounds good to me, but if A,B,C are allied and A invites D, do B and C both have to agree?

Yep... would make large alliance set-up a bit more difficult, but should solve this problem.

Now to find the time to program it... that could be fun.

Would the alliance invitation be sent only after the alliance members approve?

I would have thought so... not point in showing it to the recipient before.

Perhaps, as far as interface and function go, this could be merged with a checkbox/radio-button list idea?

Each player in an alliance could give their support for a non-member, or revoke their support of a member.

When half or more than half of alliance members approve of a nonmember, the nonmember is allowed to accept the alliance. When half or more than half of alliance members revoke their support of a current member, the member is forcefully ejected from the alliance.

Support given is default for all of your [new] alliance members, and lack of support is (of course) default for all non-members. (Or else everyone in the game would be immediately allied with one another.)

However, a quite simple reduction method would be to not allow the most recently added alliance member to invite other alliance members. Would lead to this logic:
A invites B. B cannot invite C, but A can.
C accepts. C cannot invite D, but A/B can.
D accepts. D cannot invite E, but A/B/C can.
E accepts. E cannot invite F, but A/B/C/D can. {et cetera}

Therefore a pyramid of trust is formed via seniority.