Rejected: Binding Alliances

[DeletedUser1201]

How about having alliances and NAPs binding with the game...

If a tribe adds another tribe as an ally or NAP then the opposite tribe will get an invitation that can be viewed in the Diplomacy bar(same like and invitation to shared forums...)

This must not be applied to adding enemies as it would alert the tribe we are goin' into war that they will be attacked....
[SPOIL]JAPAN did not say the US before attacking the Pearl Harbor....lol[/SPOIL]

 

[fp0815]

Tribes are very often marked only for information. It wouldn't make sense if they would get an invitation each time. ^^

 

[DeletedUser803]

how about this then.

If both tribes agree to alliance or NAP, this will stay in effect for a pre-set amount of time, lets say 3 months or 6 months.

This would implement a 'No attack' ban on those that are allied and NAP'd for that duration of time.

If both tribes wish to 'break' their treaty, it would require both tribe Dukes to end it.

 

[DeletedUser]

how about this then.

If both tribes agree to alliance or NAP, this will stay in effect for a pre-set amount of time, lets say 3 months or 6 months.

This would implement a 'No attack' ban on those that are allied and NAP'd for that duration of time.

If both tribes wish to 'break' their treaty, it would require both tribe Dukes to end it.

Not a fan.
The number of Naps I have had on w32 I can count on one hand.
Every single one of them had terms, and a length.

Every single one of them, I've had to police constantly because those tribes broke the terms as they didn't have enough control over their tribe.

Sometimes you need a show of force to bring those tribes back inline, and it's a little hard to threaten if you can't send an attack (and you can't end the agreement without the other Dukes permission, whom would never give it in his right mind knowing I'm going to kill one of his members.)

 

[DeletedUser1078]

personally i do like the idea, however what if a player is in tribe A and two of the players best friends are in tribae A and tribe B and say the two tribes were very close, if this was implememnted would be problems if an ally wanted to gift villages to the other tribe, and more often then not, tribes dont like to kick inactives/quiting account untill they are msotly rimmed

altho id like an option to have both non binding and binding, say have next to the dimplomacy (binding) for accepted ones, to cater to tribes that use them for marking (possibly stop silly tribes lieign to members about who is ally) and when they are 'waiting for comfermation' id like to have the tribe name in the diplomacy list (this is of the tribe who has yet to accept binding allaince) would appear in grey and say (awaiting confermation) - but only visible for memebrs with the diplo privs. But mainly id want a duke to be able to have to choice to choose if they want to have it non binding or binding

for the two dukes idea above, i think it shoudl be limited to it being binding only when two tribes have it accepted, and say have only a duke on either side can cancel the agreement, so the problem AYK mentioned would not be a major one.... maybe a time delay following ending agreement?

 

[DeletedUser]

I was wanting to suggest this myself. What if there was a feature like you get when you have premium that allows tribes to highlight other tribes on the map. Diplomacy would be binding, but you could highlight other villages for personal reasons.

 

[DeletedUser73]

On the other hand, such alliances and NAPs would lose much of the 'human element' which is one of the strongest things this game has going for it. Can you trust your allies? Can you control your members?

 

[DeletedUser]

If NAPS/Alliances were binding, how would you noble out inactive accounts, how would you share those accounts with your allies to give them villages in their areas?

Personally I'm against the idea, it's bad enough people spam friend requests, and tribe invites... I have no desire to see constant NAP/Ally requests being given. I've known dozens of tribes who have marked my tribe as allies on w32, even though I've never even talked to them, because it gives their members a sense of comfort.. Sometimes what I don't know, is better.

 

[DeletedUser]

I agree with AYK and Typhi- it removes much of the element of the game. Not to mention- though it might be cheap, one of the main parts of this game is backstabbing or betraying alliances, not knowing whether or not you can trust them. If you had a binding alliance and planned to break the alliance, they'd know right off the bat when you didn't want to accept the binding offer that you were planning on backstabbing.