A while a go I wasted some time and energy on the main forum ( where the noise to signal ratio is definitely to poor) trying to open a discussion about the way alliances are perceived in the game
people were unhappy about the way alliances worked and the version of the game has introduced a distinction between alliances and non-aggression pacts
My point is that an undifferentiated alliance does not exists as such, and that the critical distinction is the defensive or offensive aspect of an alliance. 99% of all formal historical alliances were defensive in nature. Offensive alliances were circumstantial, depending on the enemy.
There is, indeed, a big difference between the moral obligation to defend your ally against aggression and the supposed obligation to attack whoever he decided to attack, whatever his reasons or the odds
Using alliances offensively is one of the easiest way to blob in the game ( by getting a powerful ally contribute the large majority of the forces and asking very little in return)
I was wondering if it would'nt be interesting to make allies join offensively more dependent on 1) their attitude towards the enemy 2) the rewards they could get, rather than just assume they will be inclined to do it because they are "allies"
Of course, defensively, they should comply to their obligations, lest they suffer a huge prestige and opinion penalty
Because now there is a "Favour" mechanism in the game, that's one thing that an ally could obtain for joining, but of course (although I admit it must be difficult to code) other subtler benefits could be considered
There is also one thing that is a little problematic, is the fact that you can't really know if you're allies are going to join before actually declaring war. Although I can imagine a occasional event of an ally having second thoughts at the last moment, wars were rarely undertaken without a bit of preliminary talking to define the commitments. It would be great if there was a possibility to ask your allies if they WOULD join in case of this or that offensive war.
people were unhappy about the way alliances worked and the version of the game has introduced a distinction between alliances and non-aggression pacts
My point is that an undifferentiated alliance does not exists as such, and that the critical distinction is the defensive or offensive aspect of an alliance. 99% of all formal historical alliances were defensive in nature. Offensive alliances were circumstantial, depending on the enemy.
There is, indeed, a big difference between the moral obligation to defend your ally against aggression and the supposed obligation to attack whoever he decided to attack, whatever his reasons or the odds
Using alliances offensively is one of the easiest way to blob in the game ( by getting a powerful ally contribute the large majority of the forces and asking very little in return)
I was wondering if it would'nt be interesting to make allies join offensively more dependent on 1) their attitude towards the enemy 2) the rewards they could get, rather than just assume they will be inclined to do it because they are "allies"
Of course, defensively, they should comply to their obligations, lest they suffer a huge prestige and opinion penalty
Because now there is a "Favour" mechanism in the game, that's one thing that an ally could obtain for joining, but of course (although I admit it must be difficult to code) other subtler benefits could be considered
There is also one thing that is a little problematic, is the fact that you can't really know if you're allies are going to join before actually declaring war. Although I can imagine a occasional event of an ally having second thoughts at the last moment, wars were rarely undertaken without a bit of preliminary talking to define the commitments. It would be great if there was a possibility to ask your allies if they WOULD join in case of this or that offensive war.
- 1
.png){kind=avatar}
