Diplomatic relations

[Kuroaitou]

Might I add one more relation?

Reliant:
As a result of having such a large trade agreement for so long, the elements may no longer end the agreement without serious repercussions.

If 11 opposing elements are reliant on one element, than it wins for conquering the world diplomatically.

This. But aside from being able to trade cards and provide resources to other elements, how exactly will ALL 11 elements be 'Reliant' on one element? They still have to ways to obtain their own electrum, cards, players, etc.

Otherwise, this is a great idea to help with the 'Diplomatic' Victory section/idea.

[Glitch]

True... perhaps we need to decide on an official definition of reliance.

20% of your wealth gained from trading with one element?

[tyranim]

one thing i thought of was something like a tax.

lets say team fire uses air cards in their deck 3 times in a row, and wins each of those matches.
team air can now start looting 3 cards from any deck that fire defeats while using air cards.

[Scaredgirl]

I do not believe that when one member of an alliance declares war on another, it should be incumbent upon the other alliance members to participate as belligerents as well.

That's how it works in real life. If you don't want to go to war, you can always leave the alliance.

I think that there should be a limitation to how much diplomacy you can do, because the end result of WoE should be decided primarily by dueling. Perhaps each element can only perform a maximum of 3 diplomatic actions per week?

I agree. It has to be limited somehow. We will probably have a system where you have to organize meetings between leaders, and it takes a while to set it up.

one idea i got is:
"we need to take down earth before they get some momentum going and thrash everyone again, lets team up against them and split the loot. you lead the weakest earth member into me and ill take him/her down and ill split the reward with you 4:2"
basically, its a way to split the loot from a win if you worked together for a kill.

I guess that makes sense but it would be a nightmare to organize so I doubt it will happen.

Might I add one more relation?

Reliant:
As a result of having such a large trade agreement for so long, the elements may no longer end the agreement without serious repercussions.

These diplomatic relations are something you decide. I don't think anyone decides: "Hey, lets get reliant on our neighbor".

This would have been great with Diplomatic Victory but I removed it so that we can concentrate more on the actual fighting.

one thing i thought of was something like a tax.

lets say team fire uses air cards in their deck 3 times in a row, and wins each of those matches.
team air can now start looting 3 cards from any deck that fire defeats while using air cards.

Too complex.

Lets keep it simple people.

[Helios]

I do not believe that when one member of an alliance declares war on another, it should be incumbent upon the other alliance members to participate as belligerents as well.

That's how it works in real life. If you don't want to go to war, you can always leave the alliance.

It depends upon the type of alliance and the terms of the Treaty ratifying the alliance, both requiring further clarification.

However, real life history is replete with examples of alliances where while one member may have decided to go to war, without the others being obligated to follow suit.

1) NATO (and Warsaw Pact) - The Parties of NATO are only obligated to assist a particular member should that member be attacked, and even should that occur, it is definitely not incumbent upon them to launch their own direct counter-offensive against the aggressor.

2) The Triple Entente (World War I) -  This military alliance between Britain, France and Russia did not oblige any of its members to participate in a war declared by another; in fact, the Great Powers all had their own underlying motives to initiate hostilities against their European enemies and were not necessarily obliged to become belligerents: Russia wished to protect Serbia and the Slavs, France used this as an opportunity to re-take Alsace and Lorraine whereas Britain's cause to go to war was because Germany invaded Belgium and thus violated Belgian neutrality.

3) The Triple Alliance (World War I) - When Germany and Austria-Hungary declared war against the Allies, Italy, while remaining a member of the alliance and pledging support to her partners, remained neutral in the war, stating that it was not obligated to participate in a conflict initiated by Germany and Austria-Hungary.

4) The Auld Alliance - Signed between Scotland and France, this Treaty stipulated that should one country ever be attacked by England, that the other country would invade the agressing nation. Once again, the obligation to go to war with one's allies is not present; if Scotland invaded England, it was not incumbent upon France to do the same.

5) MNNA (Major Non-Nato Ally) - It is a designation used by the United States Government to refer to countries whom, while not being members of NATO, possess very strong and significant ties with the US. Note, however, that these MNNAs were by no means obligated to support any American offensive, in Afghanistan or in Iraq, and note also that this, by no means, entails the stripping of their special status and the ending of the special relation.

I am certain that more examples exist, but I have listed above what my thoughts immediately turned to.

[High-Lord Vin]

I have some experience in this kindof thing since I have been playing MMO empire-building war games for over a year

1. have the alliance stuff be more of a guideline (let them call the pacts whatever they want and run them however they want; don't integrate them into the game thou)

2. however, keep the ability to deny/allow access to certain things (like entrance into cities, use of fast travel, ect.)

3. don't have the game automatically update diplomatic stances; have it so only the king can do so

4. allow resources to be transport and given to other elements?

I only see one problem with this the needs clarification, rouges (people who ignore the laws of their guild/alliance; like attacking an ally or NAP'ed element)

can they be kicked, punished, or something like that?

[theloconate]

these stances are pretty much the exact same as in civilization 4 (this isn't nessesarily a bad thing)

[Scaredgirl]

I have some experience in this kindof thing since I have been playing MMO empire-building war games for over a year

1. have the alliance stuff be more of a guideline (let them call the pacts whatever they want and run them however they want; don't integrate them into the game thou)

2. however, keep the ability to deny/allow access to certain things (like entrance into cities, use of fast travel, ect.)

3. don't have the game automatically update diplomatic stances; have it so only the king can do so

4. allow resources to be transport and given to other elements?

I only see one problem with this the needs clarification, rouges (people who ignore the laws of their guild/alliance; like attacking an ally or NAP'ed element)

can they be kicked, punished, or something like that?

What you said is pretty much what I had planned.

1. I'm not 100% sure what you mean by this but I think I kind of disagree.
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes

What I'd like to do with diplomatic relations (and with other things as well), is to keep them as realistic as possible. For example, lets say in real life to nations are at peace. However that does not stop a citizen of one of these nations attacking the other nation. And if he does attack, that doesn't mean War is declared, but it should have some kind of consequences. One option would be if that player was kicked out of that team and would become an outlaw.

Maybe each player should have a "reputation" or something? A number from -100 to 100. This would tell others how respected the player is. If you did stuff like attack other players by random, you would lose reputation. If your reputation becomes negative, you become an outlaw.

these stances are pretty much the exact same as in civilization 4 (this isn't nessesarily a bad thing)

It's no secret that I have taken a lot of stuff from Civilization. It uses many great mechanics that are perfect for WoE. I've also used some stuff from Heroes of Might and Magic, as well as some regular board games.

[High-Lord Vin]

lol, I haven't played Civ before

took these idea's from Astro Empires (where pacts are entirely run by the players; the game does not actually "Support" them) and from myself


more clarification on 1.

having the teams have to chose from a set of pre-made pacts is what I am against; instead this is what happens

team #1 contacts team #2 saying they want to stop fighting

they set up a NAP (Non Aggression Pact); they agree to not attack eachother; they could also agree to open trading up or keep it closed

they could also make a pact in which they agree to defend eachother; team #1 gets attacked and team #2 does not help; the pact can still be kept alive or dropped; what exactly will happen will be up to the diplomats

is a defense pact is made between 3+ teams (which, strangely, is VERY rare in AE among the serious guilds), and one team refuses to help defend, the team can be ignored, still be helped in the future, or even be attacked (once again, up to the diplomats)

in the end, keep the door open to conditions to be added to pacts which you might never have thought of

[Daxx]

I agree with Vin, in that I don't think there's any real need for a concrete diplomacy system. The game becomes much more rich and interesting if you allow players to develop their own alliances using the tools they have (denying access to fast-travel and/or cities or not, choosing to fight or not, actually negotiating and agreeing to cooperate on certain tasks or double-crossing and backstabbing).

Based on my experience with game design, if you just allow the players the tools to organically develop their own alliances they'll have much more fun with it than if there's a system they must adhere to. It also means fewer rules and less of a headache for the organisers. Think EVE Online rather than Civilization.

[Scaredgirl]

I agree with Vin, in that I don't think there's any real need for a concrete diplomacy system. The game becomes much more rich and interesting if you allow players to develop their own alliances using the tools they have (denying access to fast-travel and/or cities or not, choosing to fight or not, actually negotiating and agreeing to cooperate on certain tasks or double-crossing and backstabbing).

Based on my experience with game design, if you just allow the players the tools to organically develop their own alliances they'll have much more fun with it than if there's a system they must adhere to. It also means fewer rules and less of a headache for the organisers. Think EVE Online rather than Civilization.

The reason why we need these diplomatic relations is that it helps us get rid of one step in communication which is crucial in running of the event.

If player A and player B happen to move in the same hex, there has to be a system that decides whether or not they will fight each other, because we don't have time to ask them if they want to fight. If we did ask them, it would mean 24-48 hours more time for each round.

So the way it works is that:

1. Players move around and land on same hexes
2. Fight Organizers read the map and see how is fighting who based on their position and their diplomatic relations. If you move to a hex where your enemy is, the duel happens automatically.


It's totally different in MMO's like EVE where thing happen real time and you can make decisions on the spot.

[Daxx]

Ah, I thought fighting was an elective thing, and one of the players had to initiate it. You mention in the Rules thread that one of the actions is "attack at random" and another is "attack X", so I assumed that fights would only happen if one of the people involved wanted to. I didn't realise that some fights happened automatically.

What happens if neither player wants to fight?