TOC & TIE Peace Treaty Discussion

The above has flaws.

I ll start with the profitablity example. I fear it illustrates all too clearly TOC's limited insight into the true damage farming does to other's - kinda highlighting The Imperium's previous problems we had with your farming of us:

"damage to his defense . 247 x 633k = 157million DAMAGE DONE TO HIS DEFENSE .

1,849,292,264- 957mil = 892mil profit to his 157million damage "

Your looking at just your profit vs. his defence damage.

In reality it should be your 892million profit vs. his 157million damage + 1,849,292,264 kuwal he has lost - so your 892million profit vs. his 2.07billion damage.

Thats a HUGE difference between how you seem to gage the effects of farming (157million damage to the defender), compared to how TIE does - the REALITY is the victim is suffering about 15 times more damage than your giving them credit for suffering in this example.....

In terms of the damage farming has on the victim vs. the gains made by the attacker, thats a difference of 2.899billion.....

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the army size example - the excessive military armaments is severely flawed. What of those who invest into unit production as the primary means of economy? Someone with a U.P of 25k has a value of roughly 4.375billion kuwal a day (175k UU rate) - thats the equivilant of 1.822million farmers (excluding AE affects).... so if someone else has 800k more farmers & a U.P of only 12.5k they ve actually got a weaker economy vs. the player with 25k U.P & 800k less farmers/ army size - yet under the proposal the weaker player will be able to farm, while the other won't be able to....

Factor AE into it and this problem becomes even worse...

If your going to do excessive military clauses (which btw TIE's clause for strikes being used against us will *probably&* remain at 7 days economic generation - strikes larger than that will be excessive) you need to do it based on economy - not army size.

Economy = Total U.P Value + Kuwal made per day from income. Thats the only way to not distinguish between the various methods of account develop (buying army size or investing in U.P etc...)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the figures you put on the army sizes suggestion... I ll admit you ve confused me.

My reading of it was 0 - 500k army size = 500million kuwal needed to be taken. For every 500k army size after that 75million more needs to be taken.

So... wouldn't that mean a 10million army size player would merely need to have (9,500,000 / 500,000 = 19 x 75 = 1.425billion) - 1.425billion + 500million = 1.925billion kuwal out under what your proposing? Your figures have confused me (albeit i m shatterred lol)... so if you could maybe re-explain it would be appreciated...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps a simpler method would be to say players between 0 - 500k army size need to have 300million kuwal out. After that every 100k army size you need to take another 50million kuwal on top.

That means a player at 600k would need to have 350million kuwal out.
A player at 1.2million army would need to have (1.2 - 0.5 = 700k /100k = 7 x 50 = 350million) 650million kuwal out.

A player at 2million would need to have 1.050billion out.
4million would need to have 2.050billion out.
8million would need to have 4.050billion out.
12million would need to have 6.050billion out etc... etc....

If you wanted to then put a limit on the above, a simple way would be to have a "cut off" point based on defence.

I.e. if I have 100k Defence Supers + MBT - thats:

100k x 150,000 = 15billion.
100k x 175,000 ( UU value in your examples) = 17.5billion
100k x 308,000 (MBT) = 30.8billion

Total of 63.3billion.

So you could simply say any value out exceeding the value of 5% of the defence (3.165billion in this example) will be farmable regardless of army size.

I.e. if the 12million army size member had say.... only 150k MBT armed defence super's (94.95billion value) he could be farmed for 4.474billion instead of the 6.050billion he would otherwise need to have out to be farmed legitimately.

To give you a idea the 12million army size player would need to have 192k defence supers armed with MBT (121.5billion total value) to qualify for the "maximum" kuwal out protection (6.050billion) for his army size....

This way people with too small defences for their army size = can be farmed.... and likewise, people simply building big defences won't be enough to stop farming since their army size will also determine how much they can be farmed.

I.e. if a 12million army size player had 400k defence supers armed with MBT's - thats 253.2billion kuwal's worth - 12.66billion kuwal is 5% value... but the maximum he could only have out would be 6.050billion (based on army size).

So basically:

- 5% of defence value = Lowest amount you can be farmed for.
- Kuwal out based on army size = maximum amount someone can have out before they are able to be farmed legitimately.

Basically then to give you a idea using just the army size example a 32million army size played could have out 16.050billion kuwal.... but in order to have that amount out and be safe under the above he'd also need to have 507,100 defence supers armed with MBT (320.9billion kuwal value).... something I think to be pretty fair given the risks of loosing that defence in war-time & needing to also support it with the necessary amount of spies/assassins (you d be talking 500billion+ in resources between the defence and supporting spies/ assassins lol - so if someone really is prepared to invest that sort of amount into sustaining and supporting a defence, they should reap the benefits lol)....

Basically then

Having a large army size and weak defence = you can get farmed for less than you otherwise could.

Having a large defence but poor army size = you can get farmed for less than you otherwise could.

Defence would still play a role in the above.... but so would army size

There would be no more players just building strikes and minimal defences - since if they have minimal defences they could get farmed a lot more.... and likewise, you d have no more player's "fortressing" themselves with huge defences vs. their income's - since their large defences would be useless once 5% of the value exceeds how much they could have out based on their army size.

People will have a incentive to invest in some form of decent defence, while also having the incentive to grow larger

doxakk wrote:Does the ceasefire include no farming of zero defence accounts belonging to TIE/TOC?

To the best of my knowledge there has never been nor ever will be protection offered to 0 defense accounts. Surely anyone that is war torn can build a token defense for 7 days. I'll ask the leaders to clarify (Ian, Ish, Kenzu, and Aworon) but I think its safe to say NO, 0 defense accounts do not have any protections.

@Ian and Ish

Well you guys hash that out, you have both lost me already.

All I can say is Kenzu's posted suggestion might work if it was done on a sliding scale, as in more kuwal out for smaller players and less out for bigger players before being farmable.

I'm reading this again and again but some point still elude me, so please humor me by answering a few questions.

Spoiler:

Am I the only one who reads these long, complex 'allowed farming targets' and comes out feeling that I should invest in a goddamn supercalculator to ensure that I don't break the potential profit margin lines that have been pre-selected by the heads of state?

Here is a hard and fast rule for you to consider in your deliberations:

If [Kuwal] <= [defense],
then: Don't raid.
If [Kuwal] = [defense],
then: Do raid.

If [Attacks in 24 hours] =>2,
Then: [Do not attack].

For those not blessed with my boozecode, attacking someone with equal to or more kuwal than their defense is ok, but if an alliance attacks someone twice in 24 hours, they must refund both kuwal stolen and losses incured.

The way I figure it: Most farming rules suffer from being too complex, if they are simple, they can be quickly read and understood, and more importantly, FOLLOWED.

But lol dongs.

ian wrote:The above has flaws.

It does have flaws . It was my opinion of what everyone seemed to have wanted in the farm policy .

ian wrote:

Spoiler:

We know that . in our convos on MSN . We brought up the discussion of does the hit have to be profitable .
Some ideas were it needs to be the amount or slightly better of what you would steal from a 0 defense inactive . currently people hit 0 defenses for around 125mil . the bare minimum profit we had in mind at that time was 125million if they have the proper kuwal amount out . ( Taking into account the issues TIE brought up in the Farm policy for WR and FIRE . )

The defense damage x 2 = bare minimum profit one needs to make if all other conditions are met from the Farm policy . IE the player needs 2bil out and u do 150mil damage to the defense . on top of the Farmee needing 2bil out you also must make 300mil profit .

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ian wrote:

Spoiler:

During this war UU rate dropped over 50% at one point . If it was not TOC or TIE we will not know for sure if the player with 25k raw's economy would be stronger then the 12.5k and 800k more farmers . The player with 25k raw and no income units is depending on selling his product for income . where as the player with income unit's has income as long as he does not get farmed .


Excessive Military Clause . max of 7 days eco into strike with a max of 40% military units . if your not with in this clause you are not permitted to Farm TOC or TIE
TOC & TIE will be more compassionate when a player is with in violation of this clause . If a player states his reasons why he is with in violation and tries to improve his economic set up . TOC and TIE may consider that to be with in The Excessive military clause .

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ian wrote:

Spoiler:

nope i didn't fix the top part thought i did lol .

500million as the starting amount to be taken .
for every 500k population u must take an additional 175million
500k population = 675million to be taken to be a legal farm and so on .

10mil army = 4bil needs to be stolen

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ian wrote:Perhaps a simpler method would be to say players between 0 - 500k army size need to have 300million kuwal out. After that every 100k army size you need to take another 50million kuwal on top.

That means a player at 600k would need to have 350million kuwal out.
A player at 1.2million army would need to have (1.2 - 0.5 = 700k /100k = 7 x 50 = 350million) 650million kuwal out.

- 5% of defence value = Lowest amount you can be farmed for.
- Kuwal out based on army size = maximum amount someone can have out before they are able to be farmed legitimately.
[/quote]

On minimum Defense to be protected . i was thinking more on the lines of minimum economic generation in defense . if u have 7 days in strike then bare minimum to be protected is 3-7 days into defense

if u have a 10billion daily eco . 10bil x 3 /633k = 47k armed defense supers with Main battle tanks .

lets factor in someone with a defense bonus of 48.6% and 175% defense techs .

base power of 1 super with MBT .

11k x (.3 +1.75 ) = 1.15billion defense . lets assume they have 5bil daily income and 5bil from up .

5bil/48 = 105million per turn on normal . ( 73.5million ) 10bil eco prolly around 4milllion army .

4million army would need 2.1bil out to be farmed with a 1.1bil defense .
20 turns of income out / 10 hours .

Minimum eco in defense . this guys needed 47k troops . his eco was split 50/50 between up and income
or even more simple your defense can be at lowest 40-50% of your strike . if u have a 2bil strike then u must have at least 1bil defense .

Guys I just have one question, if I may ... but to me this strongly seems that we'll be policing the server ... and I can't help but wonder why the heck we'd even do that? :S

Lord Ishurue wrote:

Spoiler:

No official word has yet to be posted by Kenzu or a WR representative, nor by Aworon or a Emperors representative. If no official word is posted by these 2 alliances about the ceasefire then the ceasefire will not be enacted.

I am taking the step to inform TIE of the ceasefire, but if no official word is posted then a second message will be sent to disregard the ceasefire and continue the war. I simply ask you state your acceptance or not so there is no confusion.

curumo wrote:

Spoiler:

I wonder that myself Curumo.

FarleShadow wrote:

Spoiler:

Having poor math skills myself I find myself agreeing with you on this one mate. The simpler the better. I am not sure how usable your idea really is, but I have to say I like it more then any of the others based on its sheer simplicity.

The only flaw I can honestly see is "if an alliance attacks someone twice in 24 hours". There is no way to stop that from happening if they are a good farm. I think limiting each singular player to a max of 2 hits in 24 hrs should be sufficient. Using this system if you get farmed then increase your defense, or nerf your income. Can't get much simpler.

Special Agent 47 wrote:

Lord Ishurue wrote:

Special Agent 47 wrote:Shouldn't that be done during a ceasefire since certain actions can definitely impede the negotiations? Such as massing key accounts, blanket attacks, breaking past promises, etc, etc, etc.

To me the question still is, ceasefire yes or no?

Yes lets go with the ceasefire TOC has agreed to it .

Starts Monday july 19th 00:00 server time and end july 26th 00:00 server time .
No Farming or Raiding each other . all hits that occur will be fully compensated plus a 30% fine paid to the other alliance .

Get Kenzu and Aworon to post here to confirm and alliance messages can be sent out immediately. Without confirmation form Kenzu and Aworon the ceasefire can not be enacted. We don't want 1 group to boycott the ceasefire or anything.


A copy of the message prepared to be sent as soon as confirmation from Kenzu and Aworon arrives.

Spoiler:

I agree to the ceasefire

Additional info: as you might have noticed I agreed to a ceasefire long time ago, and I reminded everyone on page 11, post 7 that the ceasefire proposal still stands.
https://aderanwars.forumotion.com/empire-wars-treaties-f3/toc-tie-peace-treaty-discussion-t1676-150.htm

@ Curumo & SA47. The Imperium Empire WON'T be policing the server any longer. Thats why I ve already said we ll reject the global protection clause, and also have no interest in extending the farming policy beyond TOC & TIE (though if other alliances wish to adopt a similar policy... feel free).

Here's a idea for a farming policy - its The Commonwealth's old policy on Dune.

No more than 3 attacks by a individual against another individual per week (7days).

That means if player A is a TIE member, and player B is a TOC member - if player A does 3 hits on player B in a 7 day period, thats fine. If player A does a 4th hit in a 7 day period - he needs to refund the kuwal taken + damage inflicted on player B + 30% fine.

All you need then is a maximum number of hits each individual can do per alliance. I would suggest a simple formula of: Alliance member size x 1.5.

That means if TIE has a member base of 38 players, 38 x 1.5= 57. Player B can therefore farm TIE a maximum of 57 times a week - conducting no more than 3 hits against any individual TIE member, and no more than 57 hits against TIE itself.

If WR has 80 members, a individual TIE member can farm WR no more than 120 times a week - conducting no more than 3 hits against an individual WR member per week.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The only additional requirement you could add onto this is that each hit must make a minimum of 200million kuwal profit i.e. to ensure the attack is done to benefit the attacker, as opposed purely for the hell of it.

If you then want to throw in LI's minimum of 3 days economic generation invested into defence - with anyone under that not being protected by the policy (so hits done on them wouldn't count towards the alliance limit or be limited to 3 hits per week against that individual). For those less than 3 days invested in defence the only requirement i think should be that the hit should have a minimum of 200million profit.

Then you have a workable and simple farming policy!

Problem solved - no hugely complex mathematical formula's.... and TIE & TOC members would each experience the EXACT same protection (no individual being able to farm them more than 3 times a week, with each hit requiring minimum of 200million profit). TIE & TOC would also be exactly protected - with the maximum number of hits being permitted per individual against the alliance itself, reflecting the member size of the alliance itself i.e. member base size x 1.5.

It stands to reason the larger (in member size) a alliance is, the more it gets farmed - hence the maximum number of hits by an individual against the alliance being based on the member size.

Whats TOC's thoughts on the above? I remember back in the first WR/ TIE war we tried to get the above policy implemented... but for whatever reason we went for a much more complicated policy (i think it could have been to do with that players with huge defences simply weren't able to be farmed - something no longer true given the new attack system!!!)

We should keep this simple.... the above policy is nice and simple.

Lord Ishurue wrote:

I already agreed .

https://aderanwars.forumotion.com/empire-wars-treaties-f3/toc-tie-peace-treaty-discussion-t1676-150.htm

In that page Aworon says he supports what i sign to speed up the process .

CeaseFIRE . begins 2010 July 19th 00:00 server time and end 2010 july 26th 00:00 server time

Could Aworon post to confirm the above please?

I d also like to point out you ll need to take Mujengen visible when the ceasefire commences... since otherwise how is TIE supposed to know who is and is not in it? lol I.e. some of your members could keep farming/ hitting and we wouldn't know if they were in Mujengen or not... or some of your ex-members could and we may still believe them to be in Mujengen... likewise TIE won't know who we can & cannot farm (i.e. we could hit someone without a alliance and then it turns out they are in Mujengen....)

Thanks

Kenzu read the post you quoted, the terms of the ceasefire had changed, and we all know how you like to renig on things or sign past documents that are not up to date.

What does TIE think about a ceasefire that starts on Monday July 18th 2010 . @ 00:00 server time and last till Monday July 25th 2010 00:00 server time ?

This is what you agreed to in that post.

Yes lets go with the ceasefire TOC has agreed to it .

Starts Monday july 19th 00:00 server time and end july 26th 00:00 server time .
No Farming or Raiding each other . all hits that occur will be fully compensated plus a 30% fine paid to the other alliance .

This is the new ceasefire agreement, notice the change? I put it in bold for you. I just want you fully aware of what you are agreeing to and will be held to. Because we don not want the same situation as last time where you signed a past agreement that was not up to speed with everyone else. I'm just trying to look out for you and WR.

@Lord Ishurue,,,
Yes I know that's why you were not listed? Everyone can see your post as it is made public and it is what the ceasefire is based on, what we asked for was the rest of TOC stating they agree to it. Lets be real here Ish, if Emperors do not publicly state they agrree to and back this agreement then they can simply begin attacking again at will and simply say "oh we didn't know, or we didn't agree to that". Then there is nothing we can do is there? What is so difficult in making 1 post simply stating you back and agree with the ceasefire proposal?

If TOC had a unified voice it may be different, but the leaders of the 3 TOC alliance have different views and opinions as this thread has shown repeatedly. As for Aworons statement, I'll quote my response to him.

Special Agent 47 wrote:

aworon wrote:
In any case, if i makes the negotiations go quicker. Ishurue has my support and I will accept any treaty he signs.

Though one thing to note, as I already explained to someone (ian and seaborgium I think) I will not abide by any farming policy that has no justification for its existance.

You just contradicted yourself greatly. In the bold text you say you will follow anything Lord Ishurue agrees to, and in the italicized line state thing you will not adhere to even if Lord Ishurue signs it into treaty.

So once again we are in a position where if Aworon or an Emperors representative does not post they can simply say "We never agreed to that".

Past actions have lead us here, and yes there is little to no trust between any of us. Player to player there are many TOC I trust and respect. Alliance to alliance there is none. I am sure TOC feels pretty much the same way.

Sending out messages to the alliance now, but Aworon or a representative will still need to post.

As the 2iC of Emperors i confirm the ceasefire!

Black Lotus wrote:As the 2iC of Emperors i confirm the ceasefire!

TY

Alliance wide messages have been sent.

Anyone got any unfinished business I guess now is the time to get it done.

18 Jul 06:30:57
17.5 hrs and counting till enactment of ceasefire.

aworon wrote:Emperors will abide by the ceasefire should TIE accept it.

bottom of page 10

I said a long time ago that we will agree to the ceasefire

What happened to the 2 Imperium members who recently left Imperium?
Did they leave Imperium because of the ceasefire?

What are we going to do with people who left TIE and TOC but haven't surrendered? No ceasefire for them?

Lord Ishurue wrote:

More ideas Kenzu , ian , Myself/ Lord Ishurue , Black Lotus were talking on MSN about .

We feel as though were on the right track on finding the perfect farming policy .


(We can make a table / legend TOC & TIE use so members will not have to crunch the math . )


Excessive military Clause : More than 7days into strike + 40%+ of army size into military (spies, assassins, defence, strike) = can't farm TIE/TOC under the policy untill both points (7days eco, 40% army size) are satisfied
Those below 3 days eco invested into defense = not protected by the policy

Farming policy:

Below 500k army size = 500million kuwal needing to be stolen.

Every 500k army size above 500k = 190million EXTRA kuwal needing to be taken on top of the initial 500million. I.e. 1million army size = 690million kuwal needed, 1.5million = 880million etc....

All hits need a minimum profit of 350million
is that roughly what we are all agreeing to - and yeah if they make communication and gain permission they can keep farming etc

This part is still being discussed on how alliance's can use force in enforcing farm policy .
Just make it part of the treaty that both sides have the right to demand a alliance meeting to discuss further punishments (including use of force) for individuals who they have reason to feel aren't following the policy.

Lets make the farming policy 200 instead of 190 million per half a million population

Kuwal stolen must be:

KUWAL - POPULATION OF VICTIM
100 million for 100k and less
250 million for 250k and less
500 million for 500k and less
+200 million for each next 500k
(500.001 requires 700 million stolen)


350 million profit is too much profit required from small players, like players who have only 50k or 100k population
and then 350 million profit is too low for players who have 5 million or 15 million population.
If you steal 5 billion kuwal from someone, you should not only make 350 million profit, this is pretty much like your goal is not to earn kuwal but to damage an alliances economy and harm them as much as you can.

Therefore here is my suggestion of minimum profit:

Profit must be:
at least 25% of total stolen kuwal

I also suggest that someone provides a table that everyone can use to calculate if attacking is according to policy and where it shows you how much kuwal and profit you will make (showing minimum and maximum)

--------------------------------------------

Excessive military clause.
I disagree with it. But I can make a compromise: Players who have over 60% population in military and are bigger than 100k are not allowed to attack players who have defense higher than zero.

Why I am against excessive military clause?
Because some players need a big military, because the cant log in as frequently as others, but I agree that there should be a minimum defense.

I suggest 5 days of raw up trained as armed def supers
If your raw up is over 20.000, then you only need 100.000 armed def supers to be protected by the treaty

-----------------------------------------------
Another example:

no more than 50% population trained in military

To be protected by treaty:
no more than 50% population trained in military
no more than 25.2% population trained in defense

To be allowed to farm people who are protected by treaty:
no more than 50% population trained in military
no more than 25.2% population trained in strike

Exception:
Players below 1 million can have any military distribution as they are small and are heavily influenced if they raid or sell uu for higher up for example. (it's easy to raid 500.000 uu in 45 minutes)

--------------------

If you think the percentages I set are too high, then consider this: excessive strike clause hurts smaller players much more than anyone else. Why?

Mainly because bigger players need much less % of population and much less days of economic production to build big strikes compared to smaller players.

Excessive strike clauses beats small players to the ground as big player with 10.000.000 might train 2% population as supers:
having 200.000 supers arming them with tanks (1100 power) and having a strike tech of 160-200% + personal bonus

Big players strike action: 3.520.000.000 - 4.400.000.000 (+personal bonus)

Smaller players, for example with 1.000.000 population, if they trained also 2% of population as supers would have 20.000 supers, they would have only IFV (800 power) to arm their troops, their strike tech would be 110-130% +personal bonus

If they used the same percentage in terms of economic production and population percentage, they would have:

Smaller players strike action: 176.000.000 - 208.000.000 (+personal bonus)

For a player to even have a chance at farming big players, they need a much higher percentage of units in strike.
Let's assume 15% in strike (150.000 supers)

Smaller players strike action with 15% in strike: 1.320.000.000 - 1.560.000.000

As we can see, even with 15%, the small player is still much weaker than a big player who only trained 2% in military.
What does it show us? It shows us that smaller players need much more military than bigger players, but unfortunately, the leaders are big and therefore often don't understand smaller players policies and their problems.

A player who has 20.000 population and sells uu, might easily have 75% population in military maybe 40% in covert to see kuwal of most zero defense players and probably 20-30% in military to be able to hit players with tiny defenses.

A player with 1.000.000 population might have 30-50% in military depending on playing style
A player with 5.000.000 population probably needs only 10-30%
A player with 15.000.000 population probably doesnt need more than 5-10%
and a player with 25.000.000 population will hardly ever need more than 5% in military

A player with 15 million can build a strike which he can use to farm most players within a week, but a player with 1 million population might need a couple weeks.

You might say he can be massed, but then again, if he farms according to policy, why should he fear getting massed? He can get massed anyway if a war starts? True, but I think it's bad enough if farmers have to live with this fear. And if they get massed, it's their problem, they knew what they were risking.


Another point! (neglected income from inactives)
A small player has only tiny economy, but he can farm and raid a lot from inactives. Each player produces 48 turns per day and can buy another 331 AT per day from trade center. That's 379 AT. It's no problem to farm 100-150 million with each of these turns. A player might have an economy of 1 billion per day, but he can farm another 4-5.5 billion each day simply from inactives.

Excessive military clause would say that he invested 30 days of eco into strike action, but actually his real income isnt 1 billion, because his income is 5 billion! So it would in reality be only 6 days of eco.


Small players have it already hard enough, there is no need to make it even harder for them with all these military clauses.

-------------------------------------------

Why not have a simple 1 sentence treaty:
All farming must be made with 15% profit

(It doesnt have to be 15, it can be any percentage that we all agree on.)

Regarding members who have left TIE & TOC and not surrendered.... I think they should be treated as having left the war unless they do something to call that into question. I.e. TIE's treated a large chunk of TOC who have left TOC as having left the war - since if we hadn't a large portion of BW III would still be deemed enemies of The Imperium lol.

Targeting people who have left their respective alliance and have long since stopped fighting in the war would be a tad harsh... least thats my thoughts on the matter.

Incidentally, just out of interest - which 2 TIE members were you referring to?

As for the rest - I ll respond when I have some more time available....

Thanks

aworon wrote:

aworon wrote:Emperors will abide by the ceasefire should TIE accept it.

bottom of page 10

I said a long time ago that we will agree to the ceasefire

I will answer you exactly as I answered Kenzu,,,,

Aworon read the post you quoted, the terms of the ceasefire had changed.

What does TIE think about a ceasefire that starts on Monday July 18th 2010 . @ 00:00 server time and last till Monday July 25th 2010 00:00 server time ?

This is what you agreed to in that post.

Yes lets go with the ceasefire TOC has agreed to it .

Starts Monday july 19th 00:00 server time and end july 26th 00:00 server time .
No Farming or Raiding each other . all hits that occur will be fully compensated plus a 30% fine paid to the other alliance .

This is the new ceasefire agreement, notice the change? I put it in bold for you. I just want you fully aware of what you are agreeing to and will be held to. I'm just trying to look out for you and The Emperors.


I mean surely 2/3rds of TOC want to actually know what it is they are agreeing to right?

Kenzu wrote:

Spoiler:

I find myself agreeing with some of the base ideas Kenzu is presenting here as I have said before, make it easier on smaller/newer players and a bit tougher on older/larger players. Only thing I might can offer is maybe use the AE as a breaking point? Anyone under the AE limit gets farming policy A and anyone over the AE gets farming policy B.

I again really like the simplicity of

Why not have a simple 1 sentence treaty:
All farming must be made with 15% profit

Much like FarleShadow's suggestion

FarleShadow wrote:Am I the only one who reads these long, complex 'allowed farming targets' and comes out feeling that I should invest in a supercalculator to ensure that I don't break the potential profit margin lines that have been pre-selected by the heads of state?

Here is a hard and fast rule for you to consider in your deliberations:

If [Kuwal] <= [defense],
then: Don't raid.
If [Kuwal] = [defense],
then: Do raid.

If [Attacks in 24 hours] =>2,
Then: [Do not attack].

For those not blessed with my boozecode, attacking someone with equal to or more kuwal than their defense is ok, but if an alliance attacks someone twice in 24 hours, they must refund both kuwal stolen and losses incured.

The way I figure it: Most farming rules suffer from being too complex, if they are simple, they can be quickly read and understood, and more importantly, FOLLOWED.

To me simplicity is the key to it being followed.

As for the chart Ish is talking about, remember me and you discussing the possibility of posting your turn income or "farming limit" weekly in your MOTD? Is that idea usable in this situation?

I am fully aware of that change

but thanks for the worries

Your welcome.


18 Jul 12:02:29
Just under 12 hrs remaining until the ceasefire goes into effect.

I agree with everything except the limit on Military(I hope I got it right). I have been working a bit and not able to post. I do not want to limit my military if i do not feel like it.
I do not agree on a Farming Policy for the server. I think every alliance has the right to police themselves and not have anything said to them by any other alliance. Freedom of choice is still everyones own virtue.
Farming Policy in a simplicity would be easier than anything else that is difficult. Any difficult policy can cause a war again.
Oh and thanks everyone for finally talking about peace.

Magnus wrote:I agree with everything except the limit on Military(I hope I got it right). I have been working a bit and not able to post. I do not want to limit my military if i do not feel like it.
I do not agree on a Farming Policy for the server. I think every alliance has the right to police themselves and not have anything said to them by any other alliance. Freedom of choice is still everyones own virtue.
Farming Policy in a simplicity would be easier than anything else that is difficult. Any difficult policy can cause a war again.
Oh and thanks everyone for finally talking about peace.

Well think about the military limits, think them through real good. Think of all the possible exploits, then you might see they are not that bad, and not out of line.

I mean bigger guys could put more people in their defense then those he farms has in their entire population and their is nothing you can do, or how about those who have 50 to 75% of their population is strike so they can farm really massive guys with no fear of getting squashed?

Just think about it. I'm not saying its right or wrong, just saying think it through completely and from all sides.

I have thought it through and there will always be people who have a different playing style. Other alliances do not have these limits and will surely pass TOC and TIE up. That can be a major disadvantage in any future war. Plus I think that any player has the right to be able to judge himself what is good and bad for him. There have been many helpful hints and teachings by all leaders or players in this game. Yep I mean ALL PLAYERS including ISH and KENZU. Now does that not come as a surprise to some. I would just like to play and not always have rules to follow.