2012: Rise of Nations [CLOSED]

[Casus_Belli]

Honeycone1 has the turn and will do it soon as our computer recovers from some horrible thing that's changed every file extension to .lnk and paralysed the whole system. I'm away, but we're trying to set him up on a different computer ASAP. The turn will be done within 24 hours at the very latest.

Apologies for unavoidable and unexpected delay due to techno explosion. [:(] [&o]

[HoneyCone701]

K
 
following from previous will be done some time late tommorow because we dont know how to set up + Dads away [:(]
sorry for any trouble caused in delay
 
HoneyCone701

[Tac2i]

It seems we have a fundamental misunderstanding about how this game is to work regarding alliances. Sailing Guy needs to come by and explain. If my interpretation is correct which I believe it is based on an earlier confirmation by Sailing Guy, then I wonder if the game has been made unplayable due to this misunderstanding and the alliance actions some players have taken.

ORIGINAL: LazyBoy

My reading of the rules, is that the only restriction is you can have a maximum of 4 alliances.

So in my case I have 2 alliances, but the other 2 are not allied.
They can go to war and I can't intervene because I am allied to both.

This to me seems to work quite well, it gives diplomacy a roll in the game.

[Tac2i]

Allies and War States

From some conversations I've had with other players I sense there may be some lack of understanding about how alliances work when someone declares war. Below is my attempt to clarify:

Alliance A
Player 1
Player 2

Alliance B
Player 3
Player 4

Use Case
Player 1 (Alliance A) declares war on Player 3 (Alliance B). Player 1 (Alliance A) is automatically at war with Player 4 (Alliance B). However, Player 2 (Alliance A) remains at peace. Player 2 is not automatically launched into war by the action of Player 1, his ally.

Basically, alliances are defensive in nature. By that I mean that if someone declares war on you, your ally is automatically at war them. On the other hand, if you declare war one someone, your ally is not automatically at war with them.

[SailingGuy]

The alliance issue was addressed...
Here: fb.asp?m=3003695
Here: fb.asp?m=3041814

And summarized very well by Webizen...
fb.asp?m=3045434

Simply put, think of an "alliance" as a group of players, not an "alliance" you make with a single other player. The concept was to put together factions, not a series of entangling alliances daisy chained together.

I haven't had the turn in awhile. Has someone made alliances that would break this house rule?

[82ndtrooper]

well I dont think this is a game breaking issue. A player just has to decided which main alliance (Team) he wants to be on and ally with all members of it. If you ally with another person not in your team make it clear to them that its just a diplomatic cease fire so to speak and can be broken at any time. Instead of calling it an alliance we can call it a treaty.

so you will belong to a Alliance of max 4 players and you cant break this.
but you can have temporary treaties that can be broken at any time.

However you must make it clear via in game message and on the boards that you have offered or accepted a TREATY.
This should work just fine and allow Diplomacy to have a strategic impact on the game.

[Tac2i]

I'm not sure this will work for a variety of reasons:
1) "The concept was to put together factions, not a series of entangling alliances daisy chained together." --Sailing Guy (creator of this random scenario)
2) Not certain how the game engine would handle these "entangling alliances."

Faction A (all allies with one another)
player 1
player 2
player 3

Faction B (all allies with one another)
player 4
player 5
player 6

Use Case
Player 3 also independently allies with player 4. Player 4 declares war on player 1. That should automatically bring players 2 and 3 into war with player 4. How does the game engine handle that since player 3 and player 4 are also allies? Does the game crash? Is the alliance automatically broken between players 3 and 4, and they are now at war? I don't know.

Also, I believe that player 3 allying with player 4 would give player 4 a complete view of players 1 and 2's map and unit locations. Not good!

I think if we vary from the original game concept it simply creates a lot of messiness with uncertain results.

ORIGINAL: 82ndtrooper

well I dont think this is a game breaking issue. A player just has to decided which main alliance (Team) he wants to be on and ally with all members of it. If you ally with another person not in your team make it clear to them that its just a diplomatic cease fire so to speak and can be broken at any time. Instead of calling it an alliance we can call it a treaty.

so you will belong to a Alliance of max 4 players and you cant break this.
but you can have temporary treaties that can be broken at any time.

However you must make it clear via in game message and on the boards that you have offered or accepted a TREATY.
This should work just fine and allow Diplomacy to have a strategic impact on the game.

[LazyBoy]

I set up a couple of 3 player test games and the game engine automatically put you at war with all of the players allies when you declare war on him.
So players in an alliance do need to all be allied to each other.

A problem arises when more than 1 alliance is offered in the same turn.
This can be avoided if players accept only one alliance per turn.
This will allow players to check who's allied with who

If you get more than 1 alliance you can always send a message to the second player asking them to offer again next turn

[Tophat1815]

with the turn? We started off fast enough with turn 6 now we again are bogged again?

[all5n]

Need to find a way to remind Nego when his turn is up. Always seems to get stuck on him.

ORIGINAL: Tophat1812

with the turn? We started off fast enough with turn 6 now we again are bogged again?

[LazyBoy]

Jay Doubleyou could you send Nego an email reminder each turn?

[Spartan07]

Turn in dropbox. Over to Bob...
Mike

[SailingGuy]

Turn to Allen.

[SailingGuy]

At the end of my turn here is how I see the balance of power...


(10) Old Imperium --- ally? --- Das Reich (12)
[22]

(6) People’s Republic --- allied --- Sultinate (4)
[10]

(11) Sun Empire --- allied --- Kaliphate (6)
(6) Middle Kingdom --- allied --- Kaliphate
Middle Kingdom --- ally? --- Sun Empire
[23]

(5) Soviets --- allied --- The States (5)
The States --- allied --- Nippon (13)
Soviets --- ally? --- Nippon
[23]

Invalid:
Nippon --- ally? --- Kaliphate

Unalligned:
Eastern Empire (11)
Republic (5)
Charlemagne (5)

Surrendered:
Confederates (0)

[SailingGuy]

The most recent turn in the drop box is labelled "toTP", but TPM has dropped out of the game. So this turn is really for derstralle and should say "toDE".

[hadley]

Should we remove "Tp" from the chain in order to avoid future confusion? Someone in charge take care of that...

~ Hadley aka Doug aka Das Reich

[derstralle]

Completly overlooked that fact - sorry. [&:]
Turn done. It's 82nd's turn now.

Thank you Doug/hadley for the friendly reminder. [:)]

[Tac2i]

I know that I removed toTP on my last turn from the save file. Someone must have put it back.

[Tophat1815]

Well 82nd is fairly fast on the turn so we will be back on track soon.

[hadley]

ORIGINAL: derstralle

Completly overlooked that fact - sorry. [&:]
Turn done. It's 82nd's turn now.

Thank you Doug/hadley for the friendly reminder. [:)]

No problem. Happy to oblige. Remember this when, sometime in the future, you are thinking about attacking me...