Better options for allied support

[jatzi]

Hi,

Im not sure if this has been brought up before but Im playing a multiplayer game right now and it is so difficult to support my friend. In order to directly help him I need to go to war with him. And that means I need to send troops close to his capital in order to help him. Thats probably skyrocketing his danger or at least preventing it from dropping. Not to mention I have to take away his territory and thus resources in order to help. I cant directly send him metal or ammo. Just money, sometimes if I get that card, and its just frustrating. He's struggling with rebellions and raiders and I cant help without in part making his situation worse. There needs to be a way to send aid, and troops, to an ally. Perhaps limit it to a victory pact level ally or the next level down maybe cuz a victory pact is a lot.

[eddieballgame]

More options per assisting one's allies would be nice; such as being able to ship metals, ammo, food &, on certain planets, even water.
Of course (?), the distance could/should be taken into account as opposed to just giving aid regardless of how far away they are...or maybe not.

[Don_Kiyote]

the distance could/should be taken into account as opposed to just giving aid regardless of how far away they are

Seems like some sort of logistics splice between the two players would be needed; a customs clearing house.

Alternatively, just disappearing the sent items for a turn, the recipients' turn, would be kinda like using the market to make the transfer.

In single player, with an allied AI, one can use trade, tech sharing, and cash gifts to help. There's also the 'ask for help' card, for the player's use. In allied multi-player, this card may be your best method.

But either way, single player w. AI or allied mp, if you and your ally are in a war together, and you lose border contact with the common enemy, then it is no longer possible to fight shoulder to shoulder. You are locked out. That can be frustrating, especially when they lose.

[jatzi]

Yeah its not just sending resources. Thats certainly part of it. Directly sharing resources with high level allies should be a thing. But also directly militarily supporting said allies needs to be a thing. Sending volunteers, recruits to be used how they wish, the ability to deploy expeditionary forces perhaps. Even just the ability to deploy air support to an allied territory to be used on my turn would help. Ofc that brings up issues of turn order so maybe they get placed under allied control. Im imagining a scenario where like my units in allied territory get cut off but my actual turn isn't next, its after my allies turn or the turn after that. Could be issues there.

Even sharing recon and logistics networks would help. If we're in a Victory Pact theres no reason I shouldn't be able to use their roads or see what they see.

[Don_Kiyote]

Im imagining a scenario where like my units in allied territory get cut off... Could be issues there.

Youse be ded, son.

Many players are often thinking about this this issue though: "how to support an ally, if and when you have one". Just being able to flip hex control *manually*, somehow, somewhen, would be really useful.

Keep in mind, any imagining involving shared use of hexes is forbidden at the most basic level of the game engine.

[jatzi]

Im imagining a scenario where like my units in allied territory get cut off... Could be issues there.

Youse be ded, son.

Many players are often thinking about this this issue though: "how to support an ally, if and when you have one". Just being able to flip hex control *manually*, somehow, somewhen, would be really useful.

Keep in mind, any imagining involving shared use of hexes is forbidden at the most basic level of the game engine.

Why is it forbidden?

Also let me lay out stuff more clearly:
Full recon and intel sharing for victory pact members
Intel sharing for lesser allies
The ability to send resources directly to an ally
The ability to cede territory and cities to other players/majors. Good for diplomacy in MP games
The ability to use an ally's logistical network and airbases so as to fight alongside them
OR the ability to send expeditionary forces to aid an ally under their banner, i.e. they'd be transferred to the ally's control

[Don_Kiyote]

Sounds good

I could only see using an ally's logistics network working if it was only a transparency type of sharing, meaning no actual LP would be shared, but player-allied roads could be used to propagate the players own LP on the players turn; and organic unit supply lines passing through would be huge of course.

Recon might be a little awkward, again if actual unit recon is used rather than just an edge bonus.

Why is it forbidden?

I understand because it greatly simplifies coding.

[jatzi]

Sounds good

I could only see using an ally's logistics network working if it was only a transparency type of sharing, meaning no actual LP would be shared, but player-allied roads could be used to propagate the players own LP on the players turn; and organic unit supply lines passing through would be huge of course.

Recon might be a little awkward, again if actual unit recon is used rather than just an edge bonus.

Why is it forbidden?

I understand because it greatly simplifies coding.

Yeah using the ally's roads for your own logistics points would be just as good as getting to use their actual points. Although that would greatly limit the effectiveness past a specific point unless you let people build logistics buildings in allied territory which opens up other cans of worms. Easier most likely to let players send expeditionary forces to fight under the control of an ally. Not a perfect solution but it works.

For the recon, I think if you're in a victory pact you should be able to see what the other player/AI sees and vice versa. As in everything. For lower level alliances idk