StarGateWars Forums

Using the Q sheilding method, and allowing allainces to use it to protect there whole memberlist from attacks.

This would be an allaince leader option. Both allaince leaders would have to accept this option, and it would mean that No attacks or anything could be done between these allaicnes.

A good way to enforce a Peace agreement. or NAPs

Limit allaicnes to having 5 of theses.

Could you accomplish the same idea with a "Set all to peace" option for the alliance leader which would set peace for everyone in the alliance?

Or is the concern that individual members might decide on their own to declare war or neutral after the fact and inadvertently violate a NAP or other treaty?

Just curious...

RobinInDaHood wrote:Could you accomplish the same idea with a "Set all to peace" option for the alliance leader which would set peace for everyone in the alliance?

Or is the concern that individual members might decide on their own to declare war or neutral after the fact and inadvertently violate a NAP or other treaty?

Just curious...

well it's more of If you can't attack then you can't break the peace.
and the only way around it would be to be dismiss from your allaince and then your no longer under there protections, and everything solved.

High Empty wrote:

RobinInDaHood wrote:Could you accomplish the same idea with a "Set all to peace" option for the alliance leader which would set peace for everyone in the alliance?

Or is the concern that individual members might decide on their own to declare war or neutral after the fact and inadvertently violate a NAP or other treaty?

Just curious...

well it's more of If you can't attack then you can't break the peace.
and the only way around it would be to be dismiss from your allaince and then your no longer under there protections, and everything solved.

Understood and I can see how that would be a useful tool.

RobinInDaHood wrote:Could you accomplish the same idea with a "Set all to peace" option for the alliance leader which would set peace for everyone in the alliance?

Or is the concern that individual members might decide on their own to declare war or neutral after the fact and inadvertently violate a NAP or other treaty?

Just curious...

That could be solved by storing alliance relations in a different place than personal relations. That way, you could program it so that alliance relations always take precedence, and if the alliance relation is neutral, it checks personal relations. Could even add a separate table for commander relations, if anyone even uses those.

So for clarity:
If alliance relation == war, use war parameters
If alliance relation == peace, no hostilities allowed
If alliance relation == neutral, use personal relation

I actually suggested making it like that a long time ago.

Sleipnir wrote:

RobinInDaHood wrote:Could you accomplish the same idea with a "Set all to peace" option for the alliance leader which would set peace for everyone in the alliance?

Or is the concern that individual members might decide on their own to declare war or neutral after the fact and inadvertently violate a NAP or other treaty?

Just curious...

That could be solved by storing alliance relations in a different place than personal relations. That way, you could program it so that alliance relations always take precedence, and if the alliance relation is neutral, it checks personal relations. Could even add a separate table for commander relations, if anyone even uses those.

So for clarity:
If alliance relation == war, use war parameters
If alliance relation == peace, no hostilities allowed
If alliance relation == neutral, use personal relation

I actually suggested making it like that a long time ago.

See the thing is, that forum has done something in Q that basicly works like this and all that would be needed would be to transfer over the code. and add the allaince usage.

I think everyone would love to have this feature! I believe we've been crying to have something like it for some time now... clicking peace with a few hundred people is just evil... it's worse than raiding!

I like this idea. Would make a lot of things easier and would help avoid a LOT of diplomatic problems I've faced, e.g. 'friendly fire', over-eager farming, etc...

thumbs up for this idea

I like this idea, something the game needs.

BW

Nice idea , although, I think sabotage/recon should still be allowed ... it is covert after all

Interesting idea i would like to see it implemented