War declaration

Mandarins31 wrote: Ok i understand better now. For me too it's a good thing if alliances can make a war official or not. I think it should'nt change because, as we can see in this topic, it's good for the roleplay.

I agree.

We will, however, be introducing some benefits to actually declaring war rather than having a war-like conflict in place.  These benefits will be mostly display-related; for example when we have the overall higher-level zoom strategic map, hostile towns and units from alliances that you are specifically "at war" with will be colour-coded and highlighted.

As we introduce more functionality there may be specific things that only apply if there's a declared state of war; but they're unlikely to be 'game-changers', simply because this mitigates against the independent non-allied player.

Interesting thread, though. tyvm

I agree with this point Thexion.

Maybe admins have many ideas about this already, but i'll put some of mines hopping it would be interesting, in accordance with the topic, and not too long


-----------------
*Friendly option player/player*:

- a neutral player can be friendly with an other neutral player. Then he can reinforce him or be reinforced by him at any time (includes city and siege reinforcement).

- a neutral player can be friendly with a player who has an alliance. They can reinforce each other if one of them is attacked by a neutral player. To do a reinforcement (defence, siege) that affects a player whose alliance is in war with the friend's alliance , the neutral player must be friendly with.
-----------------
*Friendly option player/alliance*:

- a neutral player can be friendly with an alliance (only during an official war). Then, he is knwon as friendly with every members. He can reinforce them and be reinforced by them.
-----------------

To clarify: 

A= neutral player
B= player in alliance B
C= player in alliance C
D= player in alliance D
alliance B and C are at war
alliance D has no NAP or official war with allaince B or C.


*A is friendly with B but not friendly with alliance B*
- A is attacked by C. B cant reinforce A.
- B is attacked by C. A cant reinforce B.
- alliance B has a siege against C. A cant reinforce this siege
- B is attacked by D. A can send reinforcement.
- A sieges D. B can send reinforcement.
- A can be attacked by the other alliance B members.


*A is friendly with allaince B*
- alliance B has a siege against C. A can send reinforcement to this siege.
- alliance B has a NAP with alliance X. X members can't attack A.
- A dont pay alliance's tax. and cant go on alliance's forum.

*A is friendly with allaince B and C*
- alliance B sieges alliance C. A can choose his side.

*A is friendly with B and D*
- A cant attack B or D.
- B can attack D
- B and D cant attack A

*A is friendly with allaince B and alliance D*
- B can attack D
- alliance B's members and alliance D's members can't attack A.

a friendly situation can be broke at any time by one of the two players in player/player. By the alliance's master or the player in player/alliance.




 A bit long finally. My idea was that neutral players cant go in a war without being friendly with at least one side.
they also could be used as independant mercenaries.
they can be friendly with some alliances during a war. but come back neutral after.
players who dont have any alliance members around them can ask a neutral player to be friendly and give some reinforcement.






Edited by Mandarins31 - 15 Jun 2010 at 04:37