[Suggesion] Limited Alliances

[NuberT]

I think forming Alliances should be limited somehow, because otherwise the game will end up like most other mmorpg with 2 big meta-alliances fighting each other and everyone else wiped out, which is boring.

So heres my idea:

The number of players within an alliance is limited, lets say to 50 players. So it could consist of 1 faction with 50 players or 10 factions with 5 players etc. This does not mean a faction can not have more then 50 players, but they can only have 50 players active on the strategus map while other can only participate in battles. Within an alliance gold, troops, equipment, fiefs can be exchanged for free, while outside an alliance it can only be traded.

This would of course still end up with 2 big metas so the number of wars an alliances can have simultaneously should be also limited..

Hopefully this would bring many small wars, a lot of action and fun.

[Erasmas]

And how do you want to achieve this effect, considering that all diplomatic arrangements are done outside of the actual game, i.e. they are just the arrangements done by few guys talking to each other? There is (was) no "diplomacy" function in-game (strategus)

[Punisher]

This could never be implemented, even if diplomacy it's introduced in-game, alliances will still be made outside. I am sure UIF will stay together after the wipe so unless the rest of the world unites against them the 2nd Strategus will be a lot shorter

[Leiknir]

This could never be implemented, even if diplomacy it's introduced in-game, alliances will still be made outside. I am sure UIF will stay together after the wipe so unless the rest of the world unites against them the 2nd Strategus will be a lot shorter

One thing most people don't see: Before the UIF, it was the Templar alliance that "ruled" calradia, in terms of land, UIF started with only the DRZ northern lands and the SeaRaider Sargoth area, yet managed to take the "big boy seat" from the templars, if the southern templars would have fought, and not used "lol pubcrawl" crap to GTX strategus, we would have had a nice long war going on.

[Olwen]

leiknir is right, sides were fair, templars refused to hire us and even tried to deter us from fulfilling our contract with 22nd ( as you probably know i didn't give a fuck about what they said, if they had attacked us they would have lost, if they had paid us they would have won, they hadn't the balls to do anything as i thought they did nothing ) they made a stupid choice there, then templars were definatly stupid and got their own army wiped by themselves with an obvious lack of tactic, sides were fair, templars failed, you could have given templars 20k more troops and 5 more villages and castles they still would have lost, + their alliance was a fail too and fallens gave a small push into their territory

stupid choices lead to big fails, not about alliances

[Braeden]

The fall of the Templar can be rather directly tied to the departure of Growl.  They are hardly the same faction now.

[BD_Guard_Bane]

The history of Strategus is a bit different than any of you are suggesting


Also, limited alliances won't work. There shouldn't be restrictions on player's or factions ability to interact and do diplomacy.

Its inevitable that people will try to form alliances and groups. Since you can't change that aspect, and if you tried to it'd make the game boring, you have to change other things.

Strategy/war games are always better when they try to fully account for the factors involved in warfare. Its impossible to do it fully, but the more you try, the better the game is. That's why it needs economic and logistical elements - war is, and should be, very difficult. It'd also be nice to have the social elements taken away from players too, though I think that'd be quite hard to do. Ideally the aspect that the players should have full control over is the leadership and the actual fighting - they play the part of the government and the military of their faction. The rest is down to game mechanics and they have to manage it properly.

Make economic, logistical, social (possibly) factors more complex and challenging - the diplomatic stuff should be handled by the players. With more complex and challenging mechanics of warfare, it won't be so simple and easy (and obviously beneficial) to just form a huge alliances block and wipe everyone.

For example, previously strategus was a bit like Risk - take territories to make more soldiers to take more territories. However, it was like Risk with alliances allowed, which is silly. Risk can't be played with alliances and diplomacy between players, because the game isn't complex enough to allow it. Strategus has diplomacy, and the game has to be complex enough to allow for it.

[Braeden]

You must play a different version of Risk than I play.  Mine was always about lying to people diplomacy.

[Reinhardt]

The fall of the Templar can be rather directly tied to the departure of Growl.  They are hardly the same faction now.

The Templars were going through a whole reform while they were being attacked... so it wasn't really the best time.


On topic, bad idea to be honest. See Bane's post, I agree with that fully.

[Zisa]

You must play a different version of Risk than I play.  Mine was always about lying to people diplomacy.

giggle.. +1

[MountedRhader]

What I don't want is 300 troops vs 15k troops and the 300 all have good equipment while the 15k don't give a shit and buy bride dresses. That is just retarded.

[Erasmas]

Strategus has diplomacy, and the game has to be complex enough to allow for it.

Absolutely yes. Let's hope that looong schedule that chadz assumed will result in such game.

[NuberT]

I am understanding your points, but I still think it would be more fun for everyone with restrictions. I played Galaxy-Network ages ago, but it always ended up the same two big metas fighting each other and rest of the players has been wiped out.
And the implementation of an alliance-system, which checks the numbers of players, into strategus shouldn't be that hard.

Perhaps we discuss this again in a year

[VVarlord]

The Templars were going through a whole reform while they were being attacked... so it wasn't really the best time.

Excuse me but god is willing us to not fight atm and to sort out whos in charge please would you refrain from attacking us till we are ready to go on a crusade.


I doubt theres a way to stop people making alliances together but hopefully even if there are it wont be a stand off.

[krampe]

I am understanding your points, but I still think it would be more fun for everyone with restrictions. I played Galaxy-Network ages ago, but it always ended up the same two big metas fighting each other and rest of the players has been wiped out.
And the implementation of an alliance-system, which checks the numbers of players, into strategus shouldn't be that hard.

Perhaps we discuss this again in a year

Yeah but who cares if you're not allied ingame as long as you are on good terms? There is no downfall of being not allied.
Maybe you could force that you can only hire ally mates for your battles, but that expells all none clan players from battles and will make small alliances incapable of fighting because they will always be less players.