Peace Treaties
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.
Hey all,
I’m pleased to announce that peace treaties / diplomacy games can now be played using the new mod framework!
Check out the mod “Advanced Diplo v2”, which has a war/peace/allies system, and a lot of other neat features that work with this!
-
ArDinen commented
And public, of course! Hidden treaties can function just like now... ;P
-
ArDinen commented
Maybe there could be just two _cards_: Peace and War.
Peace with setting for turns (number of turns depending on settings),
War - cancels Peace.Diplo card would be redundant this way... or might turn into 'Neutral' card... :))
I like the idea of making peace treaties more ... official. :]
-
Funk Boy commented
Too complicated, already too many games with elaborate capital and declaration of war rules, this only encourages more, I, for one, abhor the Diplomacy card, this is a wargame, not Diplomacy. By the way, Diplomacy may be the perfect strategy game, but it is not a wargame. Warlight is.
-
{101st} Freedom Crusader commented
if this mode is made it would need to be possible to chose how it works in many diferent ways:
possible or not
enforced peace or not, if yes then for how many turns
shows public or not
possible for Alliances to win togheter
should be easy to make alliances, maybe just when chosing player names having another option "send peace/alliance suggestion" or if alredy have peace "break peace/alliance"
should shown beside the normal FFA games statistics, example; "FFA 6 player alliance won" 3/4 (75%)"
should also say in the statistics if you have finished whit alliance winning(multiple people won, example;"FFA 6 player alliance won" 3/4 (75%) finished 2 whit allies in the end"
-
Anonymous commented
I'd like to start by saying that this is a bad idea. I like the idea of flagging friendlies on the side, next to their name. If this is enforced, FFA's will be so boring, they will turn into unfair matches, such as 3vs1vs1vs1 on say a 6FFA. The way they work is by backstabbing other players. Also, on some FFA's, you are playing with someone who you have an alliance with, but then they accidentally cut you off and you need to get through, and if you both need to look for the thing and press decline peace, people with slow internet (me included) are going to get booted in real-time games. Someone said eralier that at the end people in alliance should both win..... Having 2 winners completely defeats the point of warlight. Sometimes when I have a truce with a friend we decide it on who has the higher income when the last enemy is eliminated. As I had a truce with him the whole game, i count him as quite a nice guy (I don't make truces with mean guys :)) and I am willing to surrender so that he can proceed in the tourney, or just win the match, ending the match as a draw means that neither you nor your friend gets the win on their profile, and the FFA has more than 2 players, between friends the possibilty of winning is 50%, not 15% if there are no alliances. Having 2 winners means that percentages will start on unbalance on peoples profiles. On average the amount of times anyone wins a 24FFA will become much higher than the normal 4.16%, more like 7% or 8%, depending on how many peace cards you have.
-
powerneg commented
As long as we're talking diplomacy in FFA's, an option could be added to (large) FFA's that you can win together with one or more other players, for example you play a 8-player FFA and the last 2 last standing players win the game, instead of the 1 last standing player, obviously this should create a new category in ranked games.
-
Anonymous commented
Or you could just make diplomacy cards more common.
-
GMontag commented
Also, the game creator could then have the options of allowing or denying alliances, or allowing but making them public.
-
GMontag commented
This could be handled the way that WarCraft 2 handled it. Each player can choose to mark or unmark any other player as an ally at any time. This would allow you to transfer troops and make the game ask you before you attack them (treat them as a teammate in other words). However, it can be one-sided. Just because you have marked a player as friendly, doesn't mean they have marked you the same way. Also, if the only players left standing have all marked each other as allies, then the game should end.
-
wcwc commented
Maybe this is better thought of as flexible team games, where the teams can change mid-game. I wouldn't always want to play like that, but it would certainly be a fun thing to experiment with from time to time.
-
DarkCausX commented
hey, FFA= Free For All
ALL VS ALL, i dont want to be the better player and after 10 turns fight againts 3 guys in a alliance because im the strongest player! -
Shadow3 commented
I think that this idea is OKAY, but as long as you make it as an option there's no problem.
-
DarkCausX commented
Peace in FFA is for gays xD
-
grandemerda commented
diplomacy isnt a rule.... it is somethign that happens with time, an dbraking it is part of diplomacy
-
Anonymous commented
Great idea, and the peace treaties must be able to turn on/off depending of the likes of the the houst
-
General Koster commented
I know everyone gets frustrated when they get duped in an alliance or peace treaty, but this isn't a good reason to make alliance cards or whatever. Personally, in FFA mode I never make alliances or at least vocalize alliances either through private or chat. I assume the only alliance you can ever make is an unspoken alliance and should remain this way. I still put armies at my borders and I am ready to attack when I find that I can handle both the enemy and my ally. It's silly that you are allying with someone who will only become your enemy, because if they are already stronger than you, you just lost either way. At least you still have a chance if you can alternate your alliances. In my opinion in how the game should be played, I don't like this idea
-
Buicy commented
i love this idea, it adds a whole new dimension to the game.
-
[WM] Dazed & Insane commented
I don't like the idea of enforced treaties, however I like the idea of being able to flag friendlies and hostiles.
Risk is a war game, not a matter of what is right or wrong. The winner writes the history books. Also a game with private messaging tends to mean that treaties and alliances are encouraged. As is the ability to betray those allies once they have served their purpose in order to win. One things to consider when making any alliance, is what to do about them when you are no longer friends.
-
[WM] x commented
I've only ever seen a peace treaty broken once ... by me, when I was a noob.
And the player with whom I broke the treaty won the game. -
Jingle commented
I think being able to break a treaty without giving notice is an important part of the game.... and also realistic. however it could be a statistic on your profile, just like percentage booted.... number of treaties made and percentage booted. Having a treaty end with 1,2 even 3 turns notice is a bit pointless in my opinion but when it's created it could be for a certain number of turns, and when you go to break it, it just flags up like it already does for attacking a team-mate.