Alliance/Federation War switching sides

[dilvish8]

Hi,

I just had a thought, that it might be interesting to allow the switching of sides in an fralliance/frienderation war. Just as the Cardassians did in the Dominion War.

Or perhaps join an ongoing war as the Romulans did after they got the fake recording...

I haven't noticed a way to help "future frallies" from annihilation, when an empire decides to erase them from the galaxy. I have the means, but how do i actually join the war (out of the goodness of our hearts) to help the future frally. Is there any?

 

[Kensai7]

That would be an interest feature to provide for twists. But there should be "reputation" penalties for such backstabbing to your old allies, even if the reasons are noble.

 

[dilvish8]

That would be an interest feature to provide for twists. But there should be "reputation" penalties for such backstabbing to your old allies, even if the reasons are noble.

Well, Romulans and Cardassians are not enjoying that good a reputation...

 

[kgaa]

I don't honestly think that this will be possible. There's probably too much cheese involved if they would allow this sort of thing. And I mean, changing sides happened in EU4 timeframe as well, yet that game doesn't have it either. I don't think it will be in the game. Maybe they couldn't figure out a way to prevent the AI from going berserk and changing sides in every single war they were losing.

 

[Cyridius]

Switching mid war can build a nice story but mechanically speaking it's a bad idea. Wars would be entirely unpredictable and then become a matter of luck as opposed to skill. Players would get screwed over repeatedly and could cheese the AI in turn.

Joining an already existing war has already been ruled out as it makes wars too unpredictable(imagine you're about to win and then an empire joins and smashes you about).

 

[Jerev]

Not exactly a justification but couldn't you switch sides between wars?
I mean great war campaigns against big empires or between large federations will consist of several smaller wars. In one of the rebuilding phases you could change alliance and immediately join the new war against your former comrades.

 

[Jularbo Kizn]

Switching mid war can build a nice story but mechanically speaking it's a bad idea. Wars would be entirely unpredictable and then become a matter of luck as opposed to skill. Players would get screwed over repeatedly and could cheese the AI in turn.

Joining an already existing war has already been ruled out as it makes wars too unpredictable(imagine you're about to win and then an empire joins and smashes you about).

Isn't that basically what "Enforce Peace" allows in EU4?

I think it would be a cool mechanic to let one play as peace enforcers, but should have some diplomatic penalty as well, especially with races that are militarist.

 

[beckermt]

Isn't that basically what "Enforce Peace" allows in EU4?

I think it would be a cool mechanic to let one play as peace enforcers, but should have some diplomatic penalty as well, especially with races that are militarist.

Unfortunately, Enforce Peace basically never works, but the idea is there.

 

[corny.1234]

They could build a mechanism that if your allies think they are losing they will opt for a bilateral peace agreement at cost to leaveleave the federation or alliance. Of course with heavy diplomatic penalties

 

[Kensai7]

Joining an already existing war has already been ruled out as it makes wars too unpredictable(imagine you're about to win and then an empire joins and smashes you about).

Ehm, that's immensely cool actually.

 

[Cyridius]

Ehm, that's immensely cool actually.

Cool story telling maybe, mechanically speaking it's an absolutely awful mechanic. A strategy game in which war is an entirely unpredictable mechanic is deeply flawed.

There's a reason why the AI in EU4 doesn't use Enforce Peace. If you win or lose then becomes a matter of luck as opposed to what you've done or how you've played.

There's a reason games which go off track with the "wouldn't it be cool if" mentality, as opposed to making logical and coherent systems, end up mediocre.

 

[Xomus]

Cool story telling maybe, mechanically speaking it's an absolutely awful mechanic. A strategy game in which war is an entirely unpredictable mechanic is deeply flawed.

You mean, like life?
Its flawed but its immensely more interesting than soulless predictable math.

 

[Kensai7]

You mean, like life?
Its flawed but its immensely more interesting than soulless predictable math.

My thoughts exactly. Moreover, I don't think in the end it (should) happen(s) so unpredictably. The switching alliance will always have a good motive to do it and, given the penalty in reputation, the AI should and could balance such a change before making the attempt.

If it is possibly to put into the game, I really want it. As a last resort, for players like Cyridius who want predictable and ever-winning games, we might have a switch in the options to turn it off. But it should be on by default and a prerequisite for Ironman... alliance switching has been happening in real life, there is no reason not to have it in a game as well.

 

[Cyridius]

You mean, like life?
Its flawed but its immensely more interesting than soulless predictable math.

Games aren't life.

Many games are predictable but each instance of that game is different i.e. Predictability is allowing me to make reasonably educated decisions based on information I have. Unpredictability takes the game out of the player's hands. If you want unpredictability go play some slots and tell me how much fun it is. Unpredictability is a game designer's out when their mechanics are shallow and uninteresting. Predictable games are forced to concretely challenge the player in order to make it interesting.

It is not a good mechanic for you to build up an enter a conflict, armed with a host of information and knowledge, and then get destroyed by factors totally out of your control that you knew nothing about. That's absurd. That's also what this suggestion is.