Winning and Alliance War Suggestion

seaborgium wrote:
admin best of luck to trying to find a way for a 'winner' I am sure that the other game lost a fair bit of players due to that type of thoughts on war.

I have an ideea.

When a normal alliance does destruction attacks on another normal alliance members, alliance war is automatically declared. Then the war is fought in rounds. 1st round, 2nd round, etc... If you find a way to caculate the number of rounds for each war, factoring in it the alliance average power, alliance average numbers, alliance average techs, etc, etc... an alliance can fight and win a war like this:

1st round:
- the first alliance proposes surrender terms (the surrender terms could be: disbanding, military embargo, like disarming attacks, economic embargo - alliance will lose trading ability for X turns);
---- if 2nd alliance accepts, war ends and the first alliance is declared winner and the 2nd alliance suffers the penalty accepted in the surrender terms [wars won becomes a column in alliance ranks page]
---- if 2nd alliance rejects the terms, war continues to round 2.
---- if 2nd alliance does not respont to the terms in [12 turns? - 6 hours], the terms are automaticaly rejected and war continues to round 2
---- if 2nd alliance masses members of the first alliance, the war continues to round 2

2nd round:
- the 2nd alliance proposes surrender terms (the surrender terms could be: disbanding, military embargo, like disarming attacks, economic embargo - alliance will lose trading ability for X turns);
---- if 1st alliance accepts, war ends and the 2nd alliance is declared winner. The 1st alliance suffers the penalty accepted in the surrender terms [wars won becomes a column in alliance ranks page]
---- if 1st alliance rejects the terms, war continues to round 3.
---- if 1st alliance does not respond to the terms in [12 turns? - 6 hours], the terms are automaticaly rejected and war continues to round 3
---- if 1st alliance masses members of the 2nd alliance, the war continues to round 3

3rd round: (similar)
...
4th round: (similar)
...
etc
War ends when the number of rounds calculated by the game is reached.

On each round, the war points for each alliance will be calculated. At the end of each round, the war points are displayed in alliance news and an alliance is declared the winner of that round. The alliance with the most rounds won, wins the war and gets the WAR points added in the Total War Experience column [which contain from now on, only the war experience from alliance wars and not from farming innactives and other players outside of the war].


- If both alliances won equal number of rounds, the war ends in a draw.
- If it is a draw, then the Intergalactic Nations, those who offer The Temporary Council Protection, offer to both alliances the ceasefire terms: the alliances who fought cannot assault each other with destruction/sabb/assassination missions for a number of days equal with the number of rounds that the war had - it applyes only to the alliance members - if someone leaves an alliance, he/she can be assaulted/assassinated, etc
---- If both alliances accept the ceasefire terms, those restrictions apply
---- If at least one alliance does not accept the ceasefire terms proposed by the Intergalactic Nations, then the war continues to WAR OF ATTRITION (The rule of this war, is that no member involved in this war will benefit from the Temporary Council Protection, war is fought again in rounds until an alliance is declared a winner)
-------- If the alliance who refused the ceasefire terms loses the war, they lose the ability to trade and will not be protected by the Temporary Council Protection for X days equal with 2 times the number of the rounds fought [ignoring the Intergalactic Nations and seeking to wage wars that cannot be won against peaceful nations comes with Intergalatic Embargo]
-------- If the alliance who refused the ceasefire terms wins the war, they only lose the Temporary Council Protection for X days equal with 3 times the number of the rounds fought [again, ignoring the Intergalactic Nations and seeking to wage wars against peaceful much weaker nations comes with Intergalatic Embargo]

Rules:
* each round will last for... (propose?) i suggest that one round will last for at least 12hours - 1 day
* an alliance can fight multiple wars with multiple alliances, but the penalties will be cumulative
* if the winning alliance chooses military embargo, they are not allowed to wage destruction against the losing alliance, without losing the Intergalatic Nations protection... so... if they wage war against an alliance to which they won an military embargo, they will not be able to use protection for the duration of the embargo they've proposed!!!
* the military embargo lasts for .... 2 weeks?
* the economic embargo lasts for .... 1 week?... shorter than the military embargo anyway

NOTE:

Knowing the alliance rules from above, the smartass players who will want to leave the alliances but continue to wage wars against alliance(s) they have fought while in the alliance, will suffer the same "penalties" as the alliance to which they side to.... admin can code this, so that the "lone wolves" fighting would belong to an alliance... an alliance without name, without the alliance being created...

Example:


Alliance1 fights against Alliance2
lonewolf1 fights against Alliance2
lonewolf2 fights against Alliance2
..... etc.

lonewolf1, lonewolf2, etc will be added by the game in an "alliance with no name" and they will suffer the same penalties as the Alliance1
--- if the smartass lonewolf1, lonewolf2, etc will side with both alliances, their penalties will be cumulative anyway...


In other words, if you are a lonewolf and choose to side in alliance wars, you get screwed up big times, because you can end up with "huge alliance penalties"

NOTE2:


This suggestion can be extended to Empires when those will be coded...

*I will add up the suggestions for invisible alliances later - since they were kinda left out in the first post*

This suggestion is just a sketch... it needs refining for it to work properly, without abuses.

As i have just said within the other thread, i would back this idea, i also suggested a way to help define which round was which by imposing a generic number of turns in which the opposing sides cannot attack each other, NOT a ppt but something to stop attacks inbetween rounds against those alliances, not sure how it could be done tho... probs an admendment to declaring an alliance war woudl be needed to identify which players were involved in the war... if that makes sense, overall though i woudl say this woudl be a welcome update.

well this would/could work with equal alliances, but what happens when they are not?

2 Examples

Ex 1
WR and its 73 members get "assaulted and a alliance war started by Neverlight and its 2 members. Under the rules quoted above there is no way Neverlight can lose a single round. All they have to do is "turtleshell, build, mass, repeat" giving the 73 members of WR nothing to kill, and systematicly destroying the smaller/weaker WR members in their capabilities.

Ex 2
The Imperium and its 277,172,987,573 total power go to war with Brothers In Arms and its 12,364,924,918 total power. Now BiA can't even seem to break the defenses in TIE, so round after round they might damage 1 opponent while getting wiped clean in return.

points to consider
1. Anytime a war is "forced/automatic" is exploitable/abuseable
2. With no protections to rebuild there is no 2 or 3 or 4 waves/rounds. The first round will define the winner as the loser will have nothing left to fight with and not enough time to build anything to fight with.

WOW, thats a lot, I will read when I can get a bit of time.
The little I did read looked very promising.

Ragnarok wrote:As i have just said within the other thread, i would back this idea, i also suggested a way to help define which round was which by imposing a generic number of turns in which the opposing sides cannot attack each other, NOT a ppt but something to stop attacks inbetween rounds against those alliances, not sure how it could be done tho... probs an admendment to declaring an alliance war woudl be needed to identify which players were involved in the war... if that makes sense, overall though i woudl say this woudl be a welcome update.

In dealing with all the alliance war suggestions in SGW we found many issues and those same issues apply here.

1. If you "lock" 2 alliances together so no outsiders can interfer then its exploitable. 2 friendly alliances can exploit it as infinite PPTs

2. The "generic number of turns in which the opposing sides cannot attack each other" is fine except it does not stop "outside" attacks, nor does it incorperate 3rd, 4th, or 5th alliances joining in, nor lone wolves helping either side. During these "round markers" one side can get severely damaged by an outside force.

3. No scoring system was ever found to be effective unless both sides were equal in numbers, strengths, and play time. Now AW has a much better set up that stops or slows untraining and selling of weapons, but its not perfect as people have dropped weapon types on defense to gain better kewal loss ratios (going from MBT down to IFV)

Why would anyone want to have a war if they have to follow all that mumble jumble,
if both sides agree to a draw then there are no winners or losers,
all Admin has to do is add up the war experiance for each alliance to up date them,
and that has nothing to do with who won or lost, I know alot of you don't want the game where one guy can mass an alliance or zero a account on his own, so supply turns and other means are put in to stop that, but are you trying to stop alliance wars with putting in all that policy B.S. ?

¤ Angel Slayer wrote:Why would anyone want to have a war if they have to follow all that mumble jumble,
if both sides agree to a draw then there are no winners or losers,
all Admin has to do is add up the war experiance for each alliance to up date them,
and that has nothing to do with who won or lost, I know alot of you don't want the game where one guy can mass an alliance or zero a account on his own, so supply turns and other means are put in to stop that, but are you trying to stop alliance wars with putting in all that policy B.S. ?

Yeah wondering on that 1 too

I think that you guys, do not understand the concept behind the round wars. Each round could be equal with a battle and the sum of the battles is the war.... I did say that the ideea is raw and needs refining, but whatever... it seems that some of you don't care, are ignorant, or don't want wars to be won... or maybe that i have a head ake right now and can't understand what you really want... anyway... maybe i'll be back to this...


Nomad, my suggestion takes care of all the issues presented in SGW and i think that it is original, i'm not sure if someone else sugested something similar to my suggestion...


There was a big error on my part, when presenting the alliance disbandment penalty, it shouldn't be that way because it's not fair...


The round winning calculations WILL realistically represent who won it, I don't intend a system like in SGW, based on killed units, or damage inflicted... i had something else in mind...


Also, it is not my bussiness to present the calculations because it's not my game... i presented a system, raw indeed, but a system that could determine a fair winner in alliance wars....

Anyway I have a terrible head ake... i'm off...

I like this idea but I think that you are making it to complex and inflexible and there are to many rules.

The instigation and ending of wars should be controlled by those involved, either Alliances or individuals involved in personal wars.

Rather than having the game looking at events and instigating a war because the specified requirements have been met provide a way for Alliances and Individuals to indicate to the database that there is a war in progress. There would need to be a way for the opposition to confirm.

Once the war has been confirmed then the end is signified by surrender and it's acceptance. The winner would be the side that did not surrender.

Rounds could be signified by the use of a ceasefire status.

With regard to the rules you have suggested I am not sure.
Round length I think would need to be a minimum of 24 hours not 12. This community is global and everyone need to have the opportunity to participate.

I'm also not sure how the penalties or embargoes would work especially where participation in multiple wars was happening. Trading ability restrictions will only penalize those that are trading. I think that some more thought is required here but would prefer that something was put in place that involved only the participants of that war.

ie Alliance A and B have a war and Alliance A wins. Alliance A's terns are that Alliance B does not take military action against them for x days.

Therefore Alliance A needs some form of protection from Alliance B but they cannot get protection from Alliance C, D, E.... who were not involved in the war

Additionally there would need to be a mechanism for others to indicate to the database their participation.

I know that there is room for this to be exploited so there would need to be some tracking of actions taken so that a minimum criteria had to be met before war points can be awarded, although I'm not sure that this is really necessary because a discrepancy between War Points and Military Experience would soon become apparent.

Just a few thoughts. I think there needs to be a lot of flexibility and personally would like to see development and completion of existing work before this is considered because it could add different scenarios that would need to be considered. (eg. the Starport could lead to colonies and then the loss of territory can become a factor. This could mean that a small alliance could then wage war with a large alliance over the ownership of an area which while substantial to the small alliance is of little importance to the large one)