Start a new topic

Alliances rules to show level of commitment

IDEA: The alliance request feature used in-game is updated to allow you to specify levels of commitment. At any point, a player can still break an alliance, but if he/she breaks the terms of the accepted level, this will count towards their public TURNCOAT statistic (the % of alliances that they've broken). The TURNCOAT stat will let other players know how trustworthy they are.

[NOTE: These levels are just suggestions. Feel free to suggest others or different approaches]

  1. Level 1 - flexible arrangement, no specific commitment.
  2. Level 2 - Agree not to attack each other's wholly owned continent or the largest connected empire of the other. Any other territory is available for occupation.
  3. Level 3 - Agree not to attack each other for 2 turns.
  4. Level 4 - Agree not to attack each other for 3 turns
  5. Level 5 - Agree not to attack each other for 4 turns

HOW TO VOTE FOR THIS FEATURE? Tap 'Do you like this idea?' below

119 people like this idea

"This is stupid. The app should be like the board game whenever possible and you can break alliances in the board game at will."

Just my 2 cents.  You cannot fully compare the board game to the computer game.  When you are playing the board game, you know if 2 players are allied.  You are right there with them.

You have no way of knowing if anyone is allied in the online game until it is too late.

I would love it if you could just add this in the filter option to disallow alliances.  If I'm hosting a game, I would like to be able to dictate whether or not I want alliances to exist.

Let's just see how much the average person cares about the option to have alliances.  I bet most would prefer the option to NOT have an alliance as an option i their games.

But if I'm wrong...well...I guess I won't be choosing the "No Alliance" option for very long if no one will join my games.  But at the very least let's try it out and see what the consensus is.

I would just make a penalty for breaking an alliance, something that would cost someone troops.

If someone attacks 1 territory with 1 army in it that is not in a full continent, no penalty (sometimes you just need a card)

If the game is down to 2 players, no penalty (there is really no alliance)

If you break an alliance and your alliance partner / opponent has the next turn, no penalty (give them one turn notice to fortify)

Otherwise, if a player breaks an alliance by attacking or by just breaking it on the player page, for their next turn, every dice roll vs the old alliance partner should be lowered by one.  The alliance breaker would be at a significant disadvantage as every 6 turned into a 5, etc.

This would be a good deterrent to those who make and break alliances just for strategic advantage.


So here’s my theory for how the alliances should work. First thing to address is that I’m mainly focusing on how you can be put at a big disadvantage in some games. So here’s how to fix that, I think there should be a setup to where you and the other player can decide on (my idea of/my own system) a commitment level. Level 1 would be the thickest level of commitment, once both of the players become the last ones on the board the game ends with both of them being claimed the winners. However, the players will split the reward, so for example, in a ranked match when the allied players win, they each only receive half of the rank points than if they won the game by themselves (This theory/system gets pretty complex once I get through all of this.) Then this is the spot I come stuck at, I can’t exactly say how to setup the other levels but I would be glad to hear someone’s take on the level of commitment system with my theorized rules. But now for the rest... When you agree to set one of the thickest levels of commitment with the other player, both players will share territories (if you have all of North America but your ally has Alaska you will still receive bonus troops from controlling North America) and can share the amount of troops received during draft phase (if no region is claimed by either player, both will receive the default 3 troops each. I was thinking that the troops you get from the amount of territories you claim can be combined with your ally but that would be too op so it would be best to set it so both players earn troops by the amount of territories they each own alone.) and can even place their own troops in their ally’s territory (example: Green claims all of North America and their ally, Blue, owns all of South America. Blue’s turn goes last and they don’t have any troops to defend their territory before their turn comes but Green can place troops in Blue’s territory to help defend it.). While allied, the player’s can’t attack each other’s territories. Now one problem I do see with this (mainly because I love to be in alliances with multiple players for fun) is the fact of what if the player you’re in an alliance with is also in an alliance with another player? Well the simple solution to that would be that when you go to accept the alliance request, the game will also send an auto alliance invite on behalf of the third player (or at least give you a notice that both of you are in an alliance with this one player) if you don’t accept the alliance request, the level of commitment with both alliances will be automatically lowered to the thickest level to where the troop sharing and territory sharing are not included (or basically setting it to the way the alliance system is like now, but again it can differ once other ideas are implemented/suggested). But if you do accept the request to be alliances with this third player, of course things will be changed such as how much troops each player gets during draft and the rewards for each of the alliances players at the end. If you decide to break the thickest level of commitment with your allied partner, you would get a penalty and bad alliance rating (throughout games, it will show how good of an alliance partner you are), but there could also be a way to make this seem a bit more fair by setting an attack cooldown time limit, if you attack the former ally in a certain amount of turns you will receive a bad rating and maybe a penalty, but this timer won’t matter if you own a territory that would otherwise make the former ally the owner of that region (basically, if you own a territory that would complete your ally’s collection and you decide to be a dick by breaking the alliance you get a bad alliance rating no matter what... however I guess there could be a way to fix that since technically the other player wouldn’t be able to claim that territory before you break the alliance since you can’t attack them during the alliance, maybe there could be a friendly fire system so certain attacks on specific territories won’t count against you or your alliance rating) I think that’s it, I probably had another idea for this but I can’t remember exactly so I guess that’s just it for now. I hope that whoever reads this has a nice day.
Login or Signup to post a comment