[GS] Alliance system and Gathering Storm

[ggalindo001]

One thing that I am hopeful for, tho have no evidence that this will happen, is a further evolution of the alliance system. There are two dimensions that I would like to see this changed:

1. The fact that in a normal game with 7 AI opponents, I can have 5 alliances going -- and in a large game with 16 AI opponents, I can only have 5 alliances going (and in smaller map games, could be potentially allied with everyone). I think the number of concurrent alliances should be scaled to the number of AIs in the original launch of the game. And you should not be able to form alliances with more than 25% of the original number of Civs in the game. So, if you have 8 that started the game, you can form 2.

2. To point 1, the way that the governors have been implemented, in spite of it's faults, may hold the key of scaling the right way. I like the idea of alliances going deeper with some customization. For example, I think military alliances should require the allied parties to have to join a war if the other is involved (or had declared war on), economic alliances should always require a "fair exchange" of goods and strategic resources (oil, iron, etc.), religious alliances on not only not exerting pressure on each other, but targeting pressure on others, etc. Right now, I just get alliances for the heck of it, and then switch them around depending on trade routes, but with no real strategic purpose. If I know that a military alliance with Mongolia means I am going to get into a lot of wars, I might think about is that the right alliance with him.

I don't recall seeing anything specific around the alliance system being upgraded in GS, but hoping that they can take this a bit more to the next level. Or at least be able to implement some version of #1 and make forming alliances very strategic.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Speaking of alliances, I had an interesting situation in my previous game. I was allied with every single civ in the game except Brazil. In the late game (information era), one of my allies offers me a joint war against Brazil but the game warned me I would face "severe warmonger" penalties. Why would I still face severe warmonger penalties when A) I am joining a war with my ally and B) every other civ on the map is also my ally? I am hoping the grievance system in GS will fix this.

 

[Halcyan2]

Speaking of alliances, I had an interesting situation in my previous game. I was allied with every single civ in the game except Brazil. In the late game (information era), one of my allies offers me a joint war against Brazil but the game warned me I would face "severe warmonger" penalties. Why would I still face severe warmonger penalties when A) I am joining a war with my ally and B) every other civ on the map is also my ally? I am hoping the grievance system in GS will fix this.

Just because you are allied with someone doesn't mean they will approve of your military adventures. In particular, the nations which have economic, cultural, scientific, and religious alliances with you might rethink their alliances when it comes to renew the alliance with such a warmonger!

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Just because you are allied with someone doesn't mean they will approve of your military adventures. In particular, the nations which have economic, cultural, scientific, and religious alliances with you might rethink their alliances when it comes to renew the alliance with such a warmonger!

I disagree. This was not me starting a war on my own. My ally asked me for a joint war. Why would my own ally ask me to join him in his war if he was going to disapprove of me waging the very war he is asking me to join?

Even just from a gameplay perspective, what's the purpose of "joint war" if you are going to suffer "severe warmonger" penalties if you accept?

 

[Cerilis]

I disagree. This was not me starting a war on my own. My ally asked me for a joint war. Why would my own ally ask me to join him in his war if he was going to disapprove of me waging the very war he is asking me to join?

Even just from a gameplay perspective, what's the purpose of "joint war" if you are going to suffer "severe warmonger" penalties if you accept?

But the others might not be allied with the aggressor! In fact they might even not like them! Or be allied with brazil.

 

[Hans Castorp]

Presumably your other allies had rather better relations with Brazil than you and the ally that proposed the war.

Edit: Ninja'd...

 

[SupremacyKing2]

But the others might not be allied with the aggressor! In fact they might even not like them! Or be allied with brazil.

Ok but what about the ally who was at war with Brazil and asking me to join it? They should not see me as a warmonger even if some of my other allies do. Warmonger penalties should be applied on a civ by civ basis in my opinion. Also, on a side note, the aggressor who was asking me to join his war was Curtin of Australia and I got the notification that Australia was pursuing a domination victory. Who knew Australia wanted to conquer the world? LOL.

 

[Cerilis]

Ok but what about the ally who was at war with Brazil and asking me to join it? They should not see me as a warmonger even if some of my other allies do. Warmonger penalties should be applied on a civ by civ basis in my opinion. Also, on a side note, the aggressor who was asking me to join his war was Curtin of Australia and I got the notification that Australia was pursuing a domination victory. Who knew Australia wanted to conquer the world? LOL.

Wouldn't that ally not see it as warmongering anyway? I vaguely remember this being said somewhere.

 

[LKx]

I think that alliances should not be limited at all, but scale with active use of them.

As a basic exemple i mean, if you have two economical alliances together, the effect of them might scale with each ally based much more on the amount of trade routes with them, or things like that, than now.

I don't think they'll change alliances in GS though. Maybe in an hypothetical third expansion.