Massive Assault Official Forum
   
It is currently Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:54 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 12 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Proposed Andromeda changes: Alliance handling
PostPosted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:51 pm 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 3:06 am
Posts: 1338
Karma: 1

Location: USA
Tiger has proposed the following changes for the Andromeda war, to add additional strength to alliances:

1) Allow movement of armies and garrisons across ally's sectors
2) Allow exchange and transfer of sectors and money
3) Allow alliances attack one sector together
4) Allow victory of alliance if clans of this alliance agree to finish Clan war without "civil war"

These are huge changes, and will dramatically change the face of the war. Clans will be able to combine forces, money, and give each other strategic systems.

Right now, Andromeda is dominated by RN, who has swept the southeast portion of the map, and is now creeping elsewhere. They are getting almost as much income alone as the other 3 clans combined, and winning a large percentage of their battles.

Rather than end the game, Tiger suggests that we continue this rule, so that the war may continue to be interesting. Our other option is to deny these rules, and thereby let RN have the victory soon, if things don't change drastically.

As this is a Test war, Tiger recommends we implement these changes so that we can playtest them for future wars.

He also recommends that we continue this war by allowing the besieged clans to join up. The other option is to end this war soon, and begin another.

The next question is that we plan to revamp the clan wars for use with MA: PR when that expansion is released. That will be released soon, supposedly the first quarter of this year, so we need to decide whether to start a new war, which may have to be cancelled when MA: PR is released, or drag the current war on until the release of MA: PR. Keep in mind that this war hasn't even gone 2 months yet.

What do the other clans think of these proposed rules as they relate to the Andromeda war?

_________________
Founder of The New World Order, and moderator for the Andromeda Clan War.

NWO website:
http://www.freewebs.com/massiveassault-nwo/index.htm

Clan War website:
http://www.massiveassault.com/clans/nwo/ClanWar


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 7:51 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf

Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 4:01 pm
Posts: 240
Karma: 0

Location: Lyon (France)
those kind of rules will be difficult to implement (technical point of view) witch doesn't mean that it's not a good iea.

we can think about it.

the pb is : when does we consider the war is won ?
we could do as in MAN, fix a percentage of occupation of MAP and when a clan has got more (then 50%) the war end (unless an other one is too closed).

alliance : find rules to manage.
when does opponent know alliance officialy (or never ?)
how to broke..

a big point is we got to stabilize rules if we want some automation !

as andromeda war is a kind of test we can try whatever idea we want.

but we must keep in mind a basic rules.

_________________
let's play !

rotm clan website :
http://rotm.free.fr/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 8:24 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 8:50 am
Posts: 1443
Karma: 0
make the win condition a balance would work but would ahve to be dependent on the num er of clans in the war as 50% wouldn't work with 2 clans etc.

As for alliances they would need to be announched once something the requires it happens (eg system exchange/ armies moving into an allied system)

I'm personally for it but waiting for feedback from my members atm.

_________________
Have fun, that's an order! If you win even better!!
Clan War Site: http://www.massiveassault.com/clans/nwo/ClanWar/

Dragonshard Fan Site: http://www.rpgplanet.com/dragonshard/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 8:31 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 3:06 am
Posts: 1338
Karma: 1

Location: USA
I don't think it will be too much trouble to manage when we automate things... we just need another data file containing who is involved in a alliance, and use that to determine whether battles occur, and who is on which side. It will be a little more complicated, yes, but manageable.

For now we'd just have alliances made or broken in orders. Broken alliances would take one week before they go into affect though, to allow the one thats backstabbed to try to respond.

Not sure if this is a good thing for the MA community though... could create nasty hard feelings if someone backs down from an alliance like that. If it was a 1v1 game thats one thing, but when it affects two clans with 6 players each its another

As far as stabalizing the rules, yes we need to to a point, but we better be able to allow for changes in the future if we find that a rule isn't working well. If the automated system is so hard coded its impossible to make changes, it may not be worth doing.

Balance:
Yes, this might be good. No one wants to keep playing when its obvious they've lost. 50% for 4 clans might be a pretty good indication. As far as alliances are concerned we'd have to use different values (if two clans unite, what percentage do they need between them to win?)

_________________
Founder of The New World Order, and moderator for the Andromeda Clan War.

NWO website:
http://www.freewebs.com/massiveassault-nwo/index.htm

Clan War website:
http://www.massiveassault.com/clans/nwo/ClanWar


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2005 10:12 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 8:50 am
Posts: 1443
Karma: 0
ok so a summary of the suggested alliance rule change (with a few ideas from myself, which feel free to alter)

1. Both clans must incude the fact they are making an alliance in their weekly turn. If only 1 clan does it then the alliance doesn't happen and any moves that are based on the alliance are ignored.

2. Alliances are of major important and as such the media quickly finds out about them so they are made public in the weekly summary.

3. If you intend to move units into an allied system then just state movving bob(A/G) from system 1 to system 2 (allied move) or something to make obvious u rn;'t invading the system.

4. Garrisons and armies can be moved into allied systems.

5. If more than 1 clan attacks a system along with an ally then combat works as the current rules for multiple clans except..

5a. The clans count as being on the same side for purposes of least turns rule for destroying armies.

5b. The clans do not fight eachother once all defenders are dead.

5c. The system new owner is the clan with the most armies.

6. When an alliance is defending the attackers fight the 2+ clans seperately but the alliance count as the same team when deciding least turn rule for destroying armies.

7. Clans may pass systems to allied clans by stating in their weekly turn orders that they are passing it to whoever, they may not purchase anything in the system nor may the clan that is receiving until the turna fterwards. Any fort is passed along with the system. Units in the system stay under control of whoever they belong to.

8. When a clan intends to break an alliance they state so in their turn, the other clan then has 1 turn to move their units into a neighbouring friendly system that is not under attack, any units without a friendly neighbouring system or that decide not to move then attack the system they are in. Units may not move into a hostile system. Note this may mean that garrisons end up attacking a system.

Ideas not sure about the garrisons, should they be kept to only systems their clan owns?

_________________
Have fun, that's an order! If you win even better!!
Clan War Site: http://www.massiveassault.com/clans/nwo/ClanWar/

Dragonshard Fan Site: http://www.rpgplanet.com/dragonshard/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:50 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 6:29 am
Posts: 430
Karma: 0

Location: Perth, Australia
Enforcer wrote:
Ideas not sure about the garrisons, should they be kept to only systems their clan owns?


maybe only allow garrisons into a system that is being shared, that is, the income from it is divided between those in the alliance. Armies shouldn't be restricted by this though.

It might almost be an idea for the two clans to be combined under one name, and for all purposes, actually be ONE entity. But if this happens, you might start with 4 clans and end up with 2.

Yet another idea, restrict when and who can ally. for example; there are $1000 of units + forts in the war. If clan A and clan B each have $300, clan C has $250 and clan D has only $150. If clan A and clan B ally, then C and D have no hope of winning.

Maybe if there was some restriction on allying that stops the balance of the war being altered too much.

Comments?

_________________
Donut

Mentor

Clan War Site:
http://www.massiveassault.com/clans/nwo/ClanWar/

"Do or do not, there is no try" - Master Yoda


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 14, 2005 3:40 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 8:50 am
Posts: 1443
Karma: 0
Not sure if restricting who can ally is a good thing as it'supto people what they do diplomatically, if they all want to gang up on the weakest clan in the war then it'll make for a very short and unfun war. So can;t see that happening.

Where did sharing income come from? That sounds like a little too complicated for our current system.

Don't think the combining clans would work as what happens if they decide to end the alliance?

_________________
Have fun, that's an order! If you win even better!!
Clan War Site: http://www.massiveassault.com/clans/nwo/ClanWar/

Dragonshard Fan Site: http://www.rpgplanet.com/dragonshard/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 14, 2005 3:42 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 6:29 am
Posts: 430
Karma: 0

Location: Perth, Australia
no idea. It must have just popped into my head. I have been labelled eccentric by some.

_________________
Donut

Mentor

Clan War Site:
http://www.massiveassault.com/clans/nwo/ClanWar/

"Do or do not, there is no try" - Master Yoda


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 14, 2005 4:53 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 3:06 am
Posts: 1338
Karma: 1

Location: USA
It sounds like we've cleared up some of the questions of implementation of this idea... I think Enforcer's proposed rules will work pretty well (though we may need to work on what happens when alliances are ended). We still have yet to hear from RN about this issue though, and before we make such a drastic change to this war we better have the support of every clan.

_________________
Founder of The New World Order, and moderator for the Andromeda Clan War.

NWO website:
http://www.freewebs.com/massiveassault-nwo/index.htm

Clan War website:
http://www.massiveassault.com/clans/nwo/ClanWar


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 1:54 pm 
Offline
Tough Nut

Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 6:55 am
Posts: 55
Karma: 1
OK, here finally is our answer.

We think the proposed changes are good ones and that the general idea of an Alliance makes sense.

I like the idea that an Alliance can claim victory jointly without forcing a break-up of the alliance as would happen if this was a game of Diplomacy (the board game for those not familiar).

With a view to break-ups in mind, I think that systems should always be uniquely owned by one clan and that garrisons are only perrmitted in a system of their clan (otherwise a clan could build loads of garrisons, move them into their allies systems and declare the truce at an end thereby using them as armies).

A system can therefore only be transferred if it is free of garrisons of the giving clan. It should however be possible to move a garrison into a system that a clan is receiving that turn so there should be no problem with allies in neighbouring systems each containing a garrison swapping both the system and the garrison in the same turn.

To deal with revenue transfer, I think this can be instantaneous so Clan A with $50 could write build orders for $30 and a transfer to B order for $20 and allied Clan B with $10 can write build orders for $30. In the event of no transfer being listed by A then B builds armies/garrisons in the order listed (ignoring armies/garrisons that cannot be afforded).

I think that the 50% limit is too low, particularly since delaying tactics can be used to hold up battles that are effectively lost but would significantly effect the balance calculation.

As suggested by Maelstrom, we suggest the balance calculation should be done based on the revenue received each turn and I suggest 60% should be the limit.

Mike


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 6:12 pm 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 3:06 am
Posts: 1338
Karma: 1

Location: USA
I agree with Rocklizards comments about Garrisons only being allowed in their clan's systems. That should remove some headaches in implementing this.

Rocklizard wrote:
A system can therefore only be transferred if it is free of garrisons of the giving clan. It should however be possible to move a garrison into a system that a clan is receiving that turn so there should be no problem with allies in neighbouring systems each containing a garrison swapping both the system and the garrison in the same turn.


I don't like any solution that can result in actions another clan can't plan for. In this case, you won't be able to be certain when garrisons can move into another clan's territory, as it could happen Any time.

Same with instantaneous transfers. You can't plan on a clan having the current amount of money, because anyone else in their alliance could give them more. As an alternative we could have money transfers occur after turn results and before the next money allocation. That way other clans can still plan on the new amount, and you can still react to the previous turn.

Incedentally, if we choose to go with 60% balance... RN would be one country away from winning. They may only have to contest a couple more countries to reduce the income flow from other clans, and they would get 60% balance of income received.

Right now they got 66 total funds this week of 111 total funds received, giving them a 59.45% balance.

_________________
Founder of The New World Order, and moderator for the Andromeda Clan War.

NWO website:
http://www.freewebs.com/massiveassault-nwo/index.htm

Clan War website:
http://www.massiveassault.com/clans/nwo/ClanWar


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2005 10:04 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 8:50 am
Posts: 1443
Karma: 0
1 thing we might want to think on is when 2 clans form an alliance what happens to systems where they are fighting? Is the attacker given the option of offering to withdraw from an attack? If so what restrictions would this have? Armies that have lost a fight are dead, but if there are games taht are on a lower turn are these played out till they have passed the turn?
Also does the attacker ahve to withdraw, or can he stay in the system then move on from it to attack an enemy system as the system he's in is now friendly? etc..

_________________
Have fun, that's an order! If you win even better!!
Clan War Site: http://www.massiveassault.com/clans/nwo/ClanWar/

Dragonshard Fan Site: http://www.rpgplanet.com/dragonshard/


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 12 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Karma functions powered by Karma MOD © 2007, 2009 m157y