This setting will allow warlite to enforce peace treaties. Peace treaties can either be set for a certain amount of turns or be broken after giving notice. A treaty will be the equivalent of a diplomacy card. If both players acquiesce, it can be canceled early (example: one guy accidentally has 1 spot in the other guys bonus so they cancel peace he takes spot and then they remake peace). There will also be a setting that makes peace treaties public or not, depending on the creators settings. The idea of peace treaties is two-fold, one it forces people not to break treaties but also two it gets rid of people not knowing whether its ethically correct to make treaties in FFAs.
Thanks for the suggestion. Enforced peace treaties is a great feature for FFAs and diplomacy games. This is definitely something we’d love to add at some point in the future, but it’s not on our immediate roadmap.
wow that must be the most useless and at the time most popular user voice suggestion. there are so many useful and very basic suggestions to improve the game, I have no clue why this is so desperately needed ... totally waste of votes!
Angry Panda commented
how many votes will you need Fizzer to enforce this? we are almost reaching 1000 votes. And its been like 5 years this has been suggested...
So, basically, this is an alliance that can only begin and end when both players agree???
Sounds like a "someone stabbed me in the back and I want a safer war" request. Getting stabbed in the back is part of war. Having to spend some of your armies on defenses against your "friends" adds to the strategy. Besides, this leads to all sorts of game-play problems, like getting surrounded in a corner by an ally who won't break the treaty, end-of-game play where everyone is in one or more alliances and no battles can happen (back to the "stuck game" complaint), etc.
You have diplomacy cards, informal diplomacy, and team games already. I think this suggested feature would really take away from the game play of Warlight.
What would the two parties gain by playing the card? Why would anyone bother establishing a peace treaty when there is still nothing stopping them from having a secret alliance? This setting would inevitably lead to more accusations of unethical peace treaties. For example: Hey! you guys didn't attack each other turn 4 AND you didn't have a peace treaty!
I've played my fair share of Risk and Empires and now Warlight should follow this tradition.
Fortifications Card: Grants a defense bonus to a single territory against an attacking force. The bonus is base on a percentage of your territory’s current strength.
Special Forces Card: Grants an offensive bonus to a single territory during an attack order against an enemy held territory. The offensive bonus is based on a percentage of your territory’s current strength.
Raiding Card: Steals a percentage of an enemy economy and grants their loss to your next turn’s income.
Foreign Aid Card: Allows the nation that plays this card to donate a specified number of their troops to another nation’s income.
Concealment Card: Camouflages a percentage of troops in a player controlled territory from enemy view so that they may not deduce your strength in that particular territory. Allow players to swap and/or donate their cards to other players.
Phantom Armies Card: Artificially inflates your current troop strength in a territory by a percentage. In doing so, the enemy believes that you have more forces at your disposal than you actually own.
Scorched Earth Card: Turns the current armies in a player-controlled territory into neutral armies after increasing them by a percentage. The designated territory is also given a negative bonus for several turns.
Allow players to swap and/or donate their cards to other players.
C'mon fizzer,you should encourage this project of the diplomacy system
I believe that would be an addition of a new parameter at the beginning of the game that would be the option to make alliances, this option would have sub-options:
Maximum size of alliance (2 - 100)
Victory for alliance (yes or no)
Definitive alliance (yes or no) (If not, how many turns to be able to attack? (1-5)(ally cooldown))
In the game,ally the process is:
You invite someone to your guild
Who invites, is the alliance leader and the only one who can invite and expel others
Who accepts is participating and only choose when to leave
When only have one alliance, if the game is not definitive covenant , they may choose to end the game or end the alliance,by unanimity
Allies will be treated as teammates
In the profile, where there is the Ranked Match page appears a new static, will be the Alliance Games, example:
4 \ 20: 1152 / 1853 (62%)
Where the first number is the size of the alliance and the second number is total game players
It would also be interesting to a neutral status, which both accept and nobody can attack other neutral. Adding other parameter of turns to break the agreement of neutral(neutral cooldown)
About the interface in game, there would be these new buttons (Ally / Exit alliance , becomes neutral / stop being neutral) in a new sub-menu accessed from the menu that opens when you click on the player's name, under 'Send private message '
Vamos lá fizzer,apoia esse projeto do sistema de diplomacia
Acredito que seria uma adição de um novo parâmetro no início do jogo que seria a opção de fazer alianças,essa opção teria as sub-opções:
Tamanho máximo de aliança (2 até 100)
Obtenção do campo de visão (sim ou não)
Vitória por aliança(sim ou não)
Aliança definitiva(sim ou não)(Caso não,quantos turnos para poder atacar?(1-5))
No jogo,o processo para se aliar é:
Você convida alguém para sua aliança
Quem convida é o líder da aliança e o único que pode convidar e expulsar
Quem aceita é participante e só escolhe quando sair
Quando resta apenas uma aliança,se o jogo não é de aliança definitiva, estes podem escolher finalizar o jogo ou acabar a aliança
Aliados serão tratados como teammates
Na página do profile,onde há os Ranked Match,aparecerá uma nova estática,serão os Alliance Games,exemplo:
Onde o primeiro é o tamanho da aliança e o segundo numero total de jogadores do jogo
Também seria interessante um status neutro,onde ambos aceitam e ninguém pode atacar outro neutro e apenas isso.Tendo outro parâmetro de turnos para quebrar o acordo de neutro
Na interface,haveria esses novos botões(Aliar/Sair da aliança,torna-se neutro/deixar de ser neutro) em um sub-menu novo acessado do menu que se abre quando se clica no nome do jogador,abaixo de 'Send private message'
i personally don't really support the idea of game enforced peace treaties, but come on fizzer, this one is here for almost 4 years, and the most popular one for...a long time? at least a whole year, at least
I think it's a great idea! To those who say that half of the strategy is knowing to take the risk, I say that there still the option to form an alliance the old-fashioned way. The setting only serves as a binding agreement, and unlike the real world, this is a game that doesn't have to mimic real life. So to those who say real diplomacies can be broken at any time, well imagine this is a special type of diplomacy exclusive to Warlight.
No game maker is forced to use the setting, but I have a hunch that many would (including myself). In too many games, controversy breaks out between players who assume that a player who breaks his word is playing unfairly (albeit, since it is possible to go against your word, I wouldn't necessarily agree that it is "unfair"). This setting allows Warlight to mediate the alliance and bind the players to their word if they so choose, which I think would be a great setting for many players.
I've seen too many players get blacklisted by other players who don't agree regarding breaking one's promises. I think it could really clean up some of the nasty arguments that transpire.
Maggot Brain commented
I think this idea is too similar to the diplomacy card and would work better if it was implemented as a card called "alliance." If you and another player both play the alliance card on each other during the same turn, you are joined on a team. The game would then proceed as though you were on a team the whole time, meaning you can see where all of their territories are and can transfer between each other at will. This has several benefits over the above-described situation:
1) Game creators can easily decide whether or not to include the card, rather than mess around with additional settings. The inclusion or exclusion of certain cards is already a game mechanic that people are familiar with and a new card will not take much getting used to.
2) It also eliminates the need include a setting that makes the treaties public or not; if enemy cards are visible, then this would be too. Otherwise, it remains a secret.
3) Game creators can easily limit the number of alliances per game by limiting the number of card pieces. So you could, for example, start off with a whole alliance card but not get any additional pieces, capping the number of alliances you can form at one.
4) With the alliance card, a team of people can win a FFA game. The Peace Treaties setting does not seem to allow for this and it would add a radically different element to any FFA game that includes the card.
5) It would be very interesting to start a FFA game and have it end as a team game. This is also a relatively realistic expansion because nations frequently form alliances in the middle of a war.
The peace treaties setting that the thread OP suggests is really just an expanded diplomacy card and doesn't change game play significantly enough to merit the addition, but I would love to have the ability to form a team with another player mid-game.
This should definitely be in Warlight.
I would really want to be able to have a peace treaty option as well. I think that instead of cards, a good way to create it would be similar to the Private chat, where it will send you a message saying that the user desires to enter a peace treaty, accept, or refuse. They could have an option for a specified amount of turns, or until a user sends a message to cancel the peace treaty. Once a peace treaty is created, the two users would become a team, being able to transfer armies from one user to another. Another possible option is that if one decides to attack instead of transferring armies, an automatic sanction would be imposed for a determined amount of turns.
Looks like it could work in diplomacy games. However i would want a feature that makes it so that you can break the treaty by attacking. But then you can't make another treaty with anyone for the rest of the game.
[SoL] Silverwolf commented
I love this idea. I would add that the treaties could have the option of being "team" treaties and not just individual treaties, if wanted. I would also think that a treaty would need to be "voted" on by both parties in order to begin and end the treaty, and that a player would have an option to ignore peace treaty requests from certain people in some way (to avoid getting spammed with them).
eagle - sorry, haven't red your post before mine! Agree totally!!! :)
Because they are cards is totally up to creator whether use the option or not. So the game - simple, risky warlight would remain unchanged.
The card tree gets complicated of course. :)
Alliances can not win - this would double 'Teams' - they are still at war with each other, temporarily at peace.
Maybe the Diplo card could stay, only with War card added - to breake Diplo...
It would be nice if at the moment of playing the card player could set for how long the Diplo/Peace should last.
A player can play Diplo/Peace for some turns and break it by playing own War card of course.
War cards should be not as popular as Diplo/Peace - otherwise Diplo/Peace would last only one turn.
Actually there are only few problems with Diplo:
- Diplos are 'unbreakable'; in history there are many examples of peace agreements and ... disagreements. :);
- they last only selected turn period - so they seem to be a final solution, not just a useful card...
And public, of course! Hidden treaties can function just like now... ;P