Suggestion to help get more diplomacy going.

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Suggestion to help get more diplomacy going.

      HAllo

      I suggest a "non agression pact" as a possibility along with RoW, Share Intelligence and so on.

      With the choice betwen 2, 7 and 14 days guarenteed peace that gives a morale penalty if broken.
      The penalty could be 5%, 10% and 15% depending on the lenght of peace broken.

      Its a sizable penalty for breaking a political agreed on contract but still doable, especially if you combine it with a capital conquest.
      I think we need more diversity to keep the game exciting.

    • Hello fellow player,

      I like the idea, things could go a lot of different ways if you put consequences on breaking a non agression pact. Maybe the units of the player that get the alliance pact broken willh have an attack bonus against troops of the person breaking the agreement? Something to resemble spite in breaking such agreements.

      Although I do think that what a lot of players call ''backstabbing'' is a deliberate part of the game. It makes things unpredictable and all. On the other end breaking such an agreement could also be a viable strategy if performed well, so I like it.

      Kind regards,

      Edepedable

    • They could simply make it so that when you change from ROW/mapshare that the change is not instant and you have to wait for daychange .Which would warn player of the change.

      This diplomatic change in status could also be in the newspaper.eg.
      "Growing tension between Chille and Argentina has ended thier agreement."

      and then wait eg.12/24 hour for the change to happen.

    • Please don't tie this to "day change" again. There is already a very serious disadvantage for players for whom day change is in the early hours of the night (which turns out to be a disadvantage for Europeans, and favors Americans).

      More detail here:
      Fix Day End
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • I like this idea. Hope it will actually be implemented so the backstabber can still do their thing but get a punishment for not keeping the word....

      If not by day change, how do you tie it up?
      You merely adopted the shitposting. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't see a proper post until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but blinding!

    • I like the idea of having a non-aggression pact for a specified number of days that can be renewed or extended. As a former programmer though my head is swimming on how to implement without re-writing a ton of code...My thought on the easiest way to implement would be that if you sign up for one of these pacts IT CAN'T BE BROKEN unless both sides agree or the time runs out or one goes bot. Not the end of the world that neither can attack. I would think having either 3,5, or 7 days of non-aggression would do the trick.
      It would also give us options instead of joining some lame coalition that we don't want to join right out of the gate.
      "Until there are clearly defined and enforceable rules for hand-to-hand combat, there can't be rules in global war. Kill em all!"

    • ike53 wrote:

      I like the idea of having a non-aggression pact for a specified number of days that can be renewed or extended. As a former programmer though my head is swimming on how to implement without re-writing a ton of code...My thought on the easiest way to implement would be that if you sign up for one of these pacts IT CAN'T BE BROKEN unless both sides agree or the time runs out or one goes bot. Not the end of the world that neither can attack. I would think having either 3,5, or 7 days of non-aggression would do the trick.
      It would also give us options instead of joining some lame coalition that we don't want to join right out of the gate.
      This would basically be like the "peace shields" used in other games. I like the simplicity of this idea and furthers strategic and diplomatic game play which is a element of the game I do enjoy!