Players League 4

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

  • Players League 4

    Game 3 is a big success, with almost all countries taken by active players.

    For this I am starting PL 4, feeling confident it will fill up fast.

    Standard PL rules apply, with a few additions based on what is happening in PL 3 and the rules over there.

    Added rules:

    1: No nukes, no nuke bombers, no rockets
    2: If you sign up, the rest of the players will expect to join within 3 play days after start. After that, dont bother. If you do, you declare yourself a target for all other players. The reason is that it greatly upsets the balance of the game negatively.
    3: a maximum of 2 allies. I cant stress this enough. It will cause problems in the late game if you have more allies.

    The map will depend on the number of applicants and how fast the signups go.

    Questions? Feel free to ask. Suggestions? Please make them.

    Participants:

    - miech
    - Xarus
    - ButterBallBill
    - Rogodetersnowl
    - Trycster
    - Shodonar
    - Nimbrel

    (wow thats 7 in 24 hours:D keep em coming!)

    The post was edited 1 time, last by miech ().

  • Hi, sign me up please. :thumbup:

    What did you think about to allowed nukes and nuke bombers? I' think its a good chance for late game to have some special stuff? If anyone wants to spend so mush power, to research nukes, it will OK for me.

    If heard a little bird, that's whispering from the roof, that we get a new map in the next week?

    Would you like to play with your friends in a game where gold is banned?


    Watch for the next season starts in September!

  • I'm also thinking for clarity of NAP's (1) They should have to be renewable every 48 to 72 hours. That shouldn't be difficult to accomplish.
    (2) They can be broken after 12 hours notice. Again shouldn't be so difficult to accomplish.
    (3) Can not be used to attack from or used to attack into a country who has a NAP with each other (is that clear). Example Country A has a NAP with Country B. Country A can not allow Country C to attack Country B even if A and C are allies. If A and C are allied Country A can allow country to pass through to (1) stage for a later attack. (2) pass through to a province belonging to Country C for a subsequent attack.
    (4) The 12 hour notice can be reduced to a 1 hour notice if an ally is attacked by one of the NAP holders and the ally chooses to support the non-NAP ally by going to war. This 1 hour notice must be given within the first 12 hours of war or all NAP rules apply. Example Country A and Country B have a NAP. Country A is allied with Country C. Country B goes to war with Country C. Country A could (1) continue to abide by the NAP with Country B, (2) decide to support his ally, Country C, by giving a 1 hour notice to break the NAP. This must be done within the first 12 hours of war between Country B and Country C. If the 1 hour notice is not given by Country A within the first 12 hours of war then the minimum notice is 12 hours, (3) decide to support his ally, Country C, after the first 12 hours and must provide 12 hours notice that he is breaking the NAP.
    To complicated?

  • At all,

    Thanks for the feedback. As I am defeated early game, I am not sure how the no rockets thing will actually affect the game. The general idea behind it, was that rockets can be big game changers in the hands of an active player that knows what he is doing - and armies can be wiped in an instant. I think I won 7 or 8 games now, and in 4 of them rockets were basically my winning condition. Majority still rules, so if people want to include them again, sure thing.

    Nukes....dunno. Personally I have been able to fire nukes in 2 games, and in both I was basically already too big to fail. So maybe yes on nukes or no on rockets? or vice versa? So if I understand your idea correctly Xarus, you say yes nukes, no rockets?

    New map? Well then, would be great to have the PL game on it, assuming the number of players fits the map:)

    @ Trycster: I like the part of the 'cannot attack through NAP lands'. The 72 hour notice...It seems a bit too much in terms of message micromanaging. You can always choose to form the NAP in that way individually. In PL 3 I had exactly such a NAP with Yugoslavia - with a 'cooldown' period.

    The PL isnt about too much rules here and there, its at its core just a group of players who want an exciting game without worrying that you get destroyed by a creditcard or boredom (AI fighting) ;).

    Adding players.

  • It isn't a 72 hour notice its a 72 hour/3 day renewable NAP in other wards unless the NAP is terminated with a 12 hour notice or in case of a war a 1 hour notice the NAP would lapse after 72 hours unless renewed. I made those suggestions not so much to micromanage but more to make the NAP rules more standardized so as to be clearer.

  • The rules I am suggesting regarding the NAP should clarify such questions as: If I have a NAP with some one and they go to war with my ally am I obligated to the NAP or to the alliance? The answer to that is answered by NAP rule #4 in my suggestion. And it seems to me that it is very clear that you have choices you can make but you have definite responsibilities according to the choices you make.
    I make these suggestions to avoid arguments such as: The person I have a NAP with goes to war with my ally. I want to support my ally but my units are not positioned so I continue my NAP re-position my units then suddenly break the NAP arguing that you attacked my ally and I'm just supporting him.
    Or do we just assume that an alliance super-cedes a NAP or that a NAP super-cedes an alliance.
    My suggestions give a choice but you also have responsibilities. I do not believe it is micro managing.
    I suggest NAP's of 48 to 72 hours but those numbers are arbitrary and only suggestions. change that to 5 or 8 days or any number you like.