Login

**Ry Vor** · 12-10-2014, 11:59 PM

What do you think about a variation, in Steel (individual), maybe called "Honor", meaning:

1. If a player attacks (110 - 180, maybe 330) a kingdom without having declared the kingdom an enemy, the attacking king loses 2 influence and the attack is a Universal Result, meaning all kingdoms learn of it (as with gaining control of a region);
2. A kingdom may only have 2 active enemy declarations. I actually thought we already had that until recent results, maybe I am thinking of Fall of Rome;
3. If a kingdom has 3 kingdoms that have declared it enemy and actually attacked it, it has a special order like "Retribution", where he may gain his choice of certain defensive advantages, whether increases to PC defense, leader promotions, new agents, or new veteran brigades.
4. Allies cannot be declared before Turn 4. More trades between non-declared allies will be universal results.

I'm obviously trying to address the early alliances, against a lone wolf. I know players in the alliance just think its smart tactics, but again, I am interested in the original Alamaze game where a player can join by himself and not be pounded early on by a wolf pack. We need to grow the community. We can still have other formats in Steel, such as the current one without these provisos, but like-minded people might find this at least a partial solution and the chance to get knee deep before being jumped and also lower the need for lots of pre-game or early game diplomacy, NAPS, etc. I just don't see a practical way to eliminate early NAPS through the game.

**Frost Lord** · 12-11-2014, 12:21 AM

I like where you are going here. Especially the bonus for being attacked by more than 2 enemies.

**Hawk_** · (This post was last modified: 12-11-2014, 12:41 AM by Hawk_.)

(12-11-2014, 12:21 AM)Frost Lord Wrote: I like where you are going here. Especially the bonus for being attacked by more than 2 enemies.

I also like this idea. I would include order 320 and 330. I think it also has a place in the team games and anonymous games.

**bananas** · 12-11-2014, 01:08 AM

Will ally/enemy declarations be transitive? For example, A & B are allies. B declares C an enemy. Can A&C attack each other without penalty?
If you do go with transitive ally/enemy status, I suggest it not go more than one deep.

Are there similar issues for allies? No more than two? Do any of those 'natural enemy' impacts ever apply to enemy/ally declarations? I wonder if you'd see people un-declaring someone an ally once they saw he/she was getting stomped..? Smile

**Airborne Ranger** · 12-11-2014, 01:11 AM

I for one do not like it, do not fix what is not broke. You are eliminating player choices and creating an issue that only happens sometimes. Let players use diplomacy as it was intended. If you keep changing too much you will lose the game altogether.

People will get mad at getting teamed once in a while, we all have had it happen so you take it and fight on. If you keep putting limitations on game play you lose some fun. Get revenge in another game. But do not penalize game play. Heck part of the fun is the Forum bitching, we all do it but we all stay and play.

**Jumpingfist** · (This post was last modified: 12-11-2014, 01:16 AM by Jumpingfist.)

To me the abuse would be have your "allies" declare you enemy. so if someone comes along and declares you enemy you will get bonuses to fight. Now the wolf pack can protect its members without even helping out.

**bananas** · 12-11-2014, 01:39 AM

Always another way to skin a cat, eh?

**Ry Vor** · 12-11-2014, 02:06 AM

(12-11-2014, 01:08 AM)bananas Wrote: Will ally/enemy declarations be transitive? For example, A & B are allies. B declares C an enemy. Can A&C attack each other without penalty?
If you do go with transitive ally/enemy status, I suggest it not go more than one deep.

Are there similar issues for allies? No more than two? Do any of those 'natural enemy' impacts ever apply to enemy/ally declarations? I wonder if you'd see people un-declaring someone an ally once they saw he/she was getting stomped..?

No, yes, NA, no, Yes-immutable. Absolutely!

**Ry Vor** · (This post was last modified: 12-11-2014, 02:17 AM by Ry Vor.)

(12-11-2014, 01:15 AM)Jumpingfist Wrote: To me the abuse would be have your "allies" declare you enemy. so if someone comes along and declares you enemy you will get bonuses to fight. Now the wolf pack can protect its members without even helping out.

On this and other recent posts: my thinking is we can have this variant of Steel, along with the existing one, exist. So this one allows players who love the game except for pre-formed alliances or very rapid NAP's and alliances, enjoy a game with similar minded players. Then the whole ethics question goes away. I think if players playing Steel currently that tend to form rapid alliances (so should be playing Magic games instead) joined this format, intended to stop exactly that, now that persona is going to have a credibility problem.

**Ry Vor** · (This post was last modified: 12-11-2014, 03:29 AM by Ry Vor.)

Maybe to make it more clear, distinct, Steel should have two versions:

1. Cut-throat. This would be basically the current version - full diplomacy, no restrictions, make all the deals you want from before Turn 1. No bitching about who-shot-who in game or in the aftermath.

2. Honor. As described earlier in the thread. You go into this as an individual and you know pact formation is restricted, at least has a penalty. Maybe even diplomacy is restricted for the first few turns, and then is allowed.

This makes for an even playing field for both styles of play, does it not? Everyone wants a fair game, right?