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]
"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.
Hello! I have played this game for a few years now. Bought it as soon as I played it as well, and the expansions packs too :) I LOVE the new features with the addition of pre-set comments, new/improved emojis and the alliances with the addition of basic communication. Now my only qualm right now is with the alliance feature. A vast majority of the time, people use alliances to see (when using fog) yours as well as other players location on the map and then attack you. Now I would like to voice my opinion/suggestion if there can be a “percentage” next to someone name of how “trustworthy” they are as a teammate. So when you look at their name and see the alliance request option, next to it you’ll see whether or not it’ll be a good idea to even team up with them or to go against them. So if you do an alliance with someone, if you don’t warn them that you need to attack their territory then you slowly lose your trustworthiness as an alliance member. Or if you ignore their suggestion to attack another player(s). And you gain points as you don’t attack them (let’s say you border your alliance member, you don’t attack them even if they have only ‘1’ troop stationed there since they trusted you in good faith to not attack them). Or if they suggest you attack ‘Blue’ player and you do so. It seems to me, that alliance option is abused and it’s a 3/4 shot that they are going to attack you when it benefits them before they warn you of breaking off the alliance and allowing a 1 turn “warning” before it’s fair game again. Just as in alliance making of the past with various countries, they had some sort of background knowledge of who they may or may not enter an alliance with. What their character (percentage of “trustworthiness”) before they joined forces. Just a thought~ Thanks for reading!!!!!
Betraying an ally (breaking their continent) should result in the immediate reduction of all the traitor's territories on the board being reduced to one troop. Breaking an alliance needs to be made on your turn before their next turn to avoid this punishment. In addition, use the turncoat percentage. But keep all information in a big laid out second screen like before - the new layout installed today is garbage and makes the game unplayable. Get that stuff off the main screen! I cant see Australia. It slows the game down massively to check if you've reduced the other player to 11 with this new stupid format. Also add a Hurry Up! Button. If a player does not move within ten seconds for three turns in a row, they miss the next turn completely.
alliance option = cheating
players if they know how to play is to attack the biggest player
plus the dice is not risky enough and more win/losses / roll needs to happen to stop easy steam rolling out payers
I clearly see that the conflict is just because of the players who like playing in different game modes. I mean War Fog, Alliances On/Off, Balanced or Random Dice. Any important new feature should be thought separately for each of these otherways someone like and others dislike new features.