Alliances Fog of War off

[Tim]

Hi,
I think it would be good when peace/alliance partners can see all of the other alliance partner as in Team-Games.

Have someone think about it before?

[Tim]

Do you know what I mean? ^^

[Maze]

That should at max come as an option, not standard, so you can still decide whether you just agree not to attack each other (and share info that you want) or really form an alliance to go till the bitter end with the two of you, when you still have to fight each other. I can see positive arguments to have it implemented (as an option), i.e. when you both agree that you want to openly work together towards a balanced final position for both.

[Tim]

I think its better that this is no option. You make an alliance with all pro and cons or you dont make it. There should be more thinking about the alliance. In much games some people make alliances and go against another player. Ok but without risk? I think it is better when you have to choose. Peace and the partner knows my Troops or nothing at all!

By the way...

1. When you have peace it would be better that you can pass through Alliance Forces in the way.

2. And I think about whats when you cant make alliance in FFA Games... than 2 players can not go in such a game as friends and play together...

[LPhillips]

It's not an alliance, Tim.

It's a Non-Aggression Pact. They're simply not the same thing. Technically speaking, you shouldn't even be able to place units in other players' cities, nor vector to them, if all you have is a NAP.
A Non-Aggression Pact is a formal agreement in which two military powers decide not to engage one another, for mutual benefit. It's neutrality, not alliance.

War ----- Neutrality ----- Alliance
--------------NAP--------------------

In the end, you have to fight. It's still a "free-for-all" and there is only one winner. If you want to play a team game, then you're free to do so
If your concern is rather that NAP is a cost-free solution for players looking to take advantage of others in a free-for-all game, then that's another matter. Perhaps there should be an option for "Enforced Free for All" and then the typical game where players may make what pacts they will?

[Tim]

Ok so it shall be.

And youre right. I mean in FFA its better that you can not make an NAP. Nothing! Its a All vs All Game and nothing other.

PS: Sorry sometimes i have bad english. When i write alliance i mean NAP.

[LPhillips]

PS: Sorry sometimes i have bad english. When i write alliance i mean NAP.

Not a problem!

I mean in FFA its better that you can not make an NAP. Nothing! Its a All vs All Game and nothing other.

I completely agree. "Free for all" games should be enforced FFA. Even so, players will make contracts and work together even without a formal NAP setting. This can be part of the fun, as diplomacy is very important. At least without formal NAPs, you must be a good diplomat and a lot of the fun is trying to figure out whom to trust!

[Tim]

Yes, thats it. I agree in all.

That comes near to my opinion at the start from the Thread. Really Alliances muste be really alliances. Wirh Fof of war off and so on... Not NAPs...

and Naps can I make for my own. Not with game mechanics that I cannot attack. Its better to look whom to Trust. I think normal booth have an reason to make this Nap. And you can make things like "No one puts more than 2 units in border cities" to make a Nap on your own. And you have too look when the reason of the Nap swifts away.

By the the way. When you attack in a self createt Nap and you make it more times...other player hear from it that you cant Trust XYZ. Its not good for your Reputation.

[LPhillips]

That is exactly how it worked in Beta3, except that there was no alliance feature at all. Maybe some of the current mechanics will be changed later, like an option for "open diplomacy" or "fixed diplomacy", with the ability to create real alliances.