Coalition War Declaration

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

    • Coalition War Declaration

      Historically, coalitions were defined by their allegiances to other nations ESPECIALLY in times of war. USA's support for UK (even prior to official war with Germany) prevented USA from selling/trading with Germany. After declaration of war none of the allied nations would trade with the "other" factions.

      Why is this not reflected in War Declarations or Market Trade.

      Proposal:
      When a member of a Coalition declared war on any other state, other members receive MANDATORY option before they can proceed (before they can give any further orders) to either JOIN that war, or BREAK ALLEGIANCE with that member and leave that coalition.

      This would prevent Member A of Coalition declaring war on Player B, while other members of Player A's coalition buy resources from Player B and then give to Player A. This would create Trade Embargo's vs Coalitions, not just individual players.

      AI players would continue as they are (exempt from this effect).

      Simply put, Trade Embargos and War Decs are against against Coalitions, not just individual countries.
      General Maximus Decimus Meridius - "Are you not entertained?"

    • What happens if the member of your coalition is half the globe away from you? Join the war and loose your morale without actually fighting them? I disagree with the part that you need to join the war because you might be in a way yourself and you are busy, they can fight for themselves and sometimes, coalition people can send reinforcements. Plus doing this will give us less choice in the game.
      BeaveRyan
      Moderator
      EN Community Support | Bytro Labs Gmbh


      Training Alliance United Leader

    • What about the UK in WWI? At first, they decided to remain neutral despite having an alliance with France and Russia. They only joined the war after neutral Belgium was invaded by Germany

      Also, what if the weakest player in the server who made an alliance with the strongest player is forced to either go to war or break their alliance because of your idea?

    • KrestelGaming wrote:

      What about the UK in WWI? At first, they decided to remain neutral despite having an alliance with France and Russia. They only joined the war after neutral Belgium was invaded by Germany

      Also, what if the weakest player in the server who made an alliance with the strongest player is forced to either go to war or break their alliance because of your idea?
      Exactly! This idea stops us from doing many things
      BeaveRyan
      Moderator
      EN Community Support | Bytro Labs Gmbh


      Training Alliance United Leader

    • KrestelGaming wrote:

      What about the UK in WWI? At first, they decided to remain neutral despite having an alliance with France and Russia. They only joined the war after neutral Belgium was invaded by Germany
      Neither during WWI or WWII saw any of the coalitions trading resources or arms with the enemy.


      KrestelGaming wrote:

      Also, what if the weakest player in the server who made an alliance with the strongest player is forced to either go to war or break their alliance because of your idea?
      That's exactly how WWI began. The Archduke of a minor nation with allegiance and treaties to much larger nations dragged Europe into the war.

      And.. no one would be "forced"... as I said... If your coalition mate declared war on someone, when you log back on you have option to accept that war, or break your alliance with that coalition and leave.
      General Maximus Decimus Meridius - "Are you not entertained?"

    • Ryan04px2025 wrote:

      What happens if the member of your coalition is half the globe away from you? Join the war and loose your morale without actually fighting them? I disagree with the part that you need to join the war because you might be in a way yourself and you are busy, they can fight for themselves and sometimes, coalition people can send reinforcements. Plus doing this will give us less choice in the game.
      Germany and Japan were on other sides of the world... I don't recall either of them selling weapons, armour, or any other resource to UK or France. And when USA declared war on Japan, the next day Germany declared war on USA to support it's "Coalition" ally on the other side of the world.

      That's how allegiances work.
      General Maximus Decimus Meridius - "Are you not entertained?"

    • OneNutSquirrel wrote:

      Ryan04px2025 wrote:

      What happens if the member of your coalition is half the globe away from you? Join the war and loose your morale without actually fighting them? I disagree with the part that you need to join the war because you might be in a way yourself and you are busy, they can fight for themselves and sometimes, coalition people can send reinforcements. Plus doing this will give us less choice in the game.
      Germany and Japan were on other sides of the world... I don't recall either of them selling weapons, armour, or any other resource to UK or France. And when USA declared war on Japan, the next day Germany declared war on USA to support it's "Coalition" ally on the other side of the world.
      That's how allegiances work.
      I know, but you do not need to force it to happen. We can just keep it this way so we can be more flexible in the game.
      BeaveRyan
      Moderator
      EN Community Support | Bytro Labs Gmbh


      Training Alliance United Leader

    • You are just making the game flexible. I want to explain it to you and not shout no to you the moment you post, unfortunately I cannot only talk to the point. The point is that that will be a useless addition to the game
      BeaveRyan
      Moderator
      EN Community Support | Bytro Labs Gmbh


      Training Alliance United Leader

    • Here are some thing such a change would cause:

      1) Since a player with a war would now be fighting a coalition, wars would be much more serious affairs. Starting a war with a 4 player coalition would mean a moral penalty for having 4 open wars. So finishing them would be more important than just going through one player at a time. the decision to "Go-it-Alone" would be that much more serious, since if you're alone, your opponent in a coalition has the protection of his attacker being penalized by a multi-Moral penalty whereas coalition members only suffer a single penalty.

      2)No more evading Trade Embargoes with straw purchases by members of coalitions at war. I don't like the Recent modifications to the Market (i.e. 20% Tax of market orders), this would make that modification stronger.

      3)This would encourage finishing wars quickly due to the more serious Moral penalties to wars that drag on without end.

      4)Add a dimension of politics to the game. Do you stay with some guy who's always dragging the coalition into wars on the other side of the world?
      General Maximus Decimus Meridius - "Are you not entertained?"

    • OneNutSquirrel wrote:

      KrestelGaming wrote:

      What about the UK in WWI? At first, they decided to remain neutral despite having an alliance with France and Russia. They only joined the war after neutral Belgium was invaded by Germany
      Neither during WWI or WWII saw any of the coalitions trading resources or arms with the enemy.

      KrestelGaming wrote:

      Also, what if the weakest player in the server who made an alliance with the strongest player is forced to either go to war or break their alliance because of your idea?
      That's exactly how WWI began. The Archduke of a minor nation with allegiance and treaties to much larger nations dragged Europe into the war.
      And.. no one would be "forced"... as I said... If your coalition mate declared war on someone, when you log back on you have option to accept that war, or break your alliance with that coalition and leave.
      The first part of your comment has nothing to do with UK being neutral

      Also, I don't think losing your only allows because of a war is a.good idea

    • Ryan04px2025 wrote:

      What happens if the member of your coalition is half the globe away from you? Join the war and loose your morale without actually fighting them? I disagree with the part that you need to join the war because you might be in a way yourself and you are busy, they can fight for themselves and sometimes, coalition people can send reinforcements. Plus doing this will give us less choice in the game.
      I'm with Ryan on this one. I have played in an alliance in all of my games.

      And quiet often I have an ally on the other side of the world ... I'm currently I'm Japan on 39 map- allied with Sweden and Tibet. By the time I sent reinforcements to Eastern Europe, Sweden beat Nazi Germany. I'm currently at war with Russia, but Sweden's lagging behind positioning his armies before he declares war because many of his regiments were chasing Germans in France ... 8)

    • gusv wrote:

      Ryan04px2025 wrote:

      What happens if the member of your coalition is half the globe away from you? Join the war and loose your morale without actually fighting them? I disagree with the part that you need to join the war because you might be in a way yourself and you are busy, they can fight for themselves and sometimes, coalition people can send reinforcements. Plus doing this will give us less choice in the game.
      I'm with Ryan on this one. I have played in an alliance in all of my games.
      And quiet often I have an ally on the other side of the world ... I'm currently I'm Japan on 39 map- allied with Sweden and Tibet. By the time I sent reinforcements to Eastern Europe, Sweden beat Nazi Germany. I'm currently at war with Russia, but Sweden's lagging behind positioning his armies before he declares war because many of his regiments were chasing Germans in France ... 8)
      Yes, exactly. Of course it would be a great idea if you are in a coalition if you are beside that nation but if we are following his proposal, it would limit your flexibility in the game and it would kill this game.
      BeaveRyan
      Moderator
      EN Community Support | Bytro Labs Gmbh


      Training Alliance United Leader

    • A 20% tax to market trades vs 0% tax on trades (or resource gifts) to coalition members. That's is not insignificant. maybe even make the number of coalition members larger to say 6 or 7 and you would have scenarios more accurately reflecting 2 large opposing factions as opposed to many small ones getting eaten up one by one.
      General Maximus Decimus Meridius - "Are you not entertained?"