|
Author
|
Topic: Alliances Current Date/Time:
April 12, 2000 15:57:49
|
Rasputin00
King
From: Brisbane, Australia
Registered: May 99
|
 |
posted April 07, 2000 23:44
  
|
 |
|
scanning these two pages I didnt see any thread on alliances. I feel that any future game should allow for real alliances. Such as ability to stack together, unload ships at allys ports , utilisation of each others airports etc. Also incorprorate unit lending where units will still be maintained by owning civ but moved and controlled by ally. What do others think ??? ------------------
Rasputin The Mad Monk, Ra Ra Rasputin,
Russias Famous Love Machine,
Ra Ra Rasputin,
Lover of the Russian Queen |
tniem
Chieftain
From: GR, MI USA
Registered: Apr 2000
|
|
posted April 08, 2000 13:17
|
|
|
I think there was talk of alliances in one of the diplomatic threads. I would like to see a screen for alliance discussions. We could make our attacks in synch. I mean we could divide our enemy's map and say Aztecs invade the northern English cities in two turns. Aztecs will try to take 3 cities in that turn in an effort to gain the English's attention. Then in the third turn with Queen Elizabeth focused to the north I will invade the south and take as much as I can in one turn.To make these type of attacks possible, the two alligned nations should agree before the attack how they will split England up between them with who gets what and how much. The more one is willing to sacrifice or use in the attack the more that nation gets when the attack succeeds. |
Rasputin00
King
From: Brisbane, Australia
Registered: May 99
|
|
posted April 08, 2000 18:43
|
|
|
I would rather have direct control over total attack by allowing stacking of units etc... This isnt about diplomatic relations its about actually being able to combine allied armies as in real life! |
tniem
Chieftain
From: GR, MI USA
Registered: Apr 2000
|
|
posted April 08, 2000 21:04
|
|
|
So you want to be able to control your allies troops?(I think this is what you mean)I think that would be a great addition if you could control the troops of your allies. In World War I, the U.S. and England sent troops to a French commander who gave them commands. Recently the U.S. has told all other nations what to do with their units. Controlling units would be a good addition. |
Rasputin00
King
From: Brisbane, Australia
Registered: May 99
|
|
posted April 09, 2000 03:37
|
|
|
not just control of others units, but complete ability to stack together passthrough each others citys not have to move around other units you are allied to ...Unloading of ships at foriegn ports for allied nations too |
Pren Draig
Settler
From:
Registered: Apr 2000
|
|
posted April 10, 2000 01:23
|
|
|
Sounds good. I think though that you shouldn't be able to use allied troops completely at your own discresion however. For example if you and your ally have agreed to attack a certain enemy and you use allied troops you'd only be able to use them against that enemy and not against someone else (or something like that). |
MidKnight Lament
Warlord
From: Melbourne, Australia
Registered: May 99
|
 |
posted April 10, 2000 02:06
|
|
|
You shouldn't be able to move allied troops unless they specifically give you permission (even then?). I mean, what would your reaction be if someone started moving your troops around in a multi-player game? Allied or not, I want to move my own troops. Rasputin00 is dead right that ZOC shouldn't be active with troops you're allied to, and the foreign port idea sounds good too. Perhaps this could be extended to airports and refuelling in foreign cities as well. These options could be default just because you're allied, or they could be negotiated as part of separate diplomatic options. - MKL
[This message has been edited by MidKnight Lament (edited April 10, 2000).] |
Rasputin00
King
From: Brisbane, Australia
Registered: May 99
|
|
posted April 11, 2000 10:23
|
|
|
probalby best as extra to normal alliance , add an extra diplo status that says share of units... Share of ports, airports etc...If you have given your ally permission to use your troops you could still rescind that and your troops will not fight i ncertain battles, maybe this might make it time consuming in that you need permission before moving a stack of units into battle... |
MidKnight Lament
Warlord
From: Melbourne, Australia
Registered: May 99
|
|
posted April 11, 2000 10:55
|
|
|
Mmmm, I still think it would be better as an added option. I don't want to have to hold back on maiking a rather beneficial alliance just because I didn't want them to use my ports.- MKL |
Earthling7
Chieftain
From: Netherlands (although I am Icelandic)
Registered: Jul 1999
|
 |
posted April 11, 2000 11:49
|
|
|
It's simple. You have an alliance with another nation. The nation is at war with a third one. It asks for control over a few units of yours. You get an option to say yes or no. The AI moves the units towards the enemy. It decides to attack. You will need to give final approval before the AI can actually use the units. Your decision might be based on probability of the outcome. If the attack is a success, you will earn 50% of the loot, but the ally keeps the city.This would work the same the other way around, if you controlled the ally's units. Guess that should work OK? |
Dida
Settler
From:
Registered: Jan 2000
|
|
posted April 11, 2000 12:31
|
|
|
this is not a good idea. In such a situation I would rather send over troops and control them on my own. (officially enter into the war) |
Rasputin00
King
From: Brisbane, Australia
Registered: May 99
|
|
posted April 11, 2000 12:39
|
|
|
you people are still talking SP , this option would give greater control in MP.. Especially being able to stack together... and why would you prefer to do your own attacking, is it tha tyou dont trust your ally, ???? |
tniem
Chieftain
From: GR, MI USA
Registered: Apr 2000
|
|
posted April 11, 2000 16:46
|
|
|
No its just that if I am going to risk my troops I would like to control the cities that they took. If I am playing multiplayer I may need to ally with a human or computer but I am still trying to beat that person. Why would I give them my units that I built to attack a city that I would only get money from taking? That city could later be used to build weapons to destroy my empire or build a space ship part just before I could finish and cost me the game. But I would agree with allowing the option.ZOC should not affect your ally unless stipulated in the negotiations. |
Earthling7
Chieftain
From: Netherlands (although I am Icelandic)
Registered: Jul 1999
|
|
posted April 11, 2000 18:06
|
|
|
It should indeed be an option. Nobody is forcing you to use it, but it may be strategically beneficial. If you and your ally are small and you need to tke care of a big civ, then it may be handy. Also, if this feature would have you less "involved", it might be a diplomatic game to play... |
MidKnight Lament
Warlord
From: Melbourne, Australia
Registered: May 99
|
|
posted April 11, 2000 20:13
|
|
|
It would certainly be cool if a few small civs decided to gang up on a bigger one which was being a nuisance. It would be another way to stop a civ from getting too far ahead. At the moment, civs don't work together at all.- MKL |
Rasputin00
King
From: Brisbane, Australia
Registered: May 99
|
|
posted April 12, 2000 08:32
|
|
|
and why cant allainces win, why do allys have to turn on each other, surley an allaince win can be win as good as a solo win, when playing wit hhumans dont want to break an alliance simply because game rules state that an allaince doesnt win game... If my ally arrives on AC or we wipe out others then that should be end of game.. allaince wins... that way you notso scared to allow an ally to take acity for you ... |
Gord McLeod
Chieftain
From: Georgetown, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Mar 2000
|
|
posted April 12, 2000 15:57
|
|
|
In SMAC, alliances *can* win. Up to three factions can participate in a shared victory... the primo faction of the triumvirate claims overall victory, and the two partners in the win get allied victor status. |
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
