Hi there people, i'm in the middle of a war, on which i've got a full blown ally... situation dictaded this.

But since i'm a player used to other strategy wargames, i miss one thing in the game, that i think would help terribly.

For those who've played Warlord, you must remember the Diplomacy window, where there were 3 levels

Peace - No level of warfare, and if someone "breaked" it without a turn of warning, would be penalised regarding the other players (in here why not being sent a message like warlords "betrayal of X upon Y" plus a loss of points... 1000, 2000, u take ur pick

Limited Warfare - Only clashes upon armies abroad, in here could be like Total warfare outside the original land of the particular players, breaking that would incour as above.

Full Blown Warfare - Everything is permitted.

This would permit for example... "escalades" in conflicts or "downgrades"... for example if someone "betrayed" another player, a warring but "civilized" player could more easilly accept a "truce" proposed by that player, so that he could "fight back" the "vilain".

Another thing that i would propose it's inclusion IF my suggestion has "legs to walk" (as we say in my homeland), an "Ally" option, 'cause as i've said before, i have a full blown ally, but since my fowards units have been fully destroyed, my rearguard echelon units are advancing in the "blind" (1st haven't got time yet to build scouts 2nd my ally and i "play" at different hours).

what can i say izno its a fair idea but this game is defently geard to real world stratagy
thats why there are no game inforced peneltys it encurages a player to deal whith probloms on his own tearms
and makes the diplomecy elemnent of the game alot more realistic aswell as alowing a player gain a hounerbale or unhounerble reputation in the game whith his fellow players


on a side note you can keep track of your alinces and deals in the logebook portion of your game screen hope this helps you

How about checking off diplomacy options with each player then recording any breaches. Every player would have a diplomacy rating showing agreements etered and agreements broken.

i've remembered another use for this "diplomacy" window.

For example, when u have a full alliance, not what's considered a regular NAP, with the option of the diplomacy window, there would be no impedments when an army is trying to pass between "enemy" armies from my ally.

Izno,
In another suggestion you made mention of "ambush" which implies being stealthy and I have also suggested somewhere restricting LOS near mountains and trees to facilitate ambush, but here you speak of giving warning and being penalized for not giving warning;
and you also mention here three levels of diplomacy (i.e.:
peace, limited warfare and full blown warefare).

In another game I have played the levels of diplomacy are:
enemy, neutral or ally (i.e. a player is automatically an enemy unless other arrangements are made). In that game if your units get too close to a unit of a player who hasn't set you to at least neutral or ally, his units will automatically consider your units to be an enemy and fire upon your units.

I mean as mentioned before again and again, this is a war game and also a medieval wargame where as far as I'm concerned the only sense of honor may have been for two knights not to deliberately attack each other's horses.
I have recently maneuvered my units into position to ambush the units of a player with whom I had no NAP and which player was not at war with anyone. For all I know he may have been on his way to attack the player in the corner which player had been attacked by another player a few turns earlier but there had been a lull in their hostilities for some reason.

I had moved near an unclaimed mine that unfortionately on this map may also be possibly considered to be the mine of the guy in the corner because as I recall, the guy in the corner has 3 quarries but only one mine;
Otherwise I would have taken the mine myself. Anyway when my opponent appeared, he didn't appear near the mine but instead near a quarry being taken by the other corner guy so I attacked him from about 8 or 9 spaces away.

In any event I had no idea as to the intentions of my chosen opponent but I did choose him as my opponent and I spent several turns moving my units into position to attack him which I did at my earliest convienence especially because I suspected he may have been on his way to attack the guy in the corner who as far as I'm concerned already had an opponent.

I'm NOT ACCUSING my opponent of intending to attack the guy in the corner but in any event we are now at war and so is the guy in the corner with the first guy who attacked him. I was just not going to chance my opponent initiating hostilities with anyone else and I don't think I have done anything dishonorable by attacking him unannounced because I intentionally made no agreements with anyone except the guy in the corner with whom I have a NAP.

PS:
IMO the game can't be made to satisfy everyone's whim of their idea of honorable play concerned with every time someone does something that they don't think was fair. The way I see it, the game I am in had progressed to about turn 12 with the only attack having been made to the guy in the corner and if adjacent players haven't requested a NAP, I would be very wary that I might be their intended target. If the guy messaged me to inquire of my intentions, I may very well have told him that I was coming at him but I see no reason to lose the element of surprize under circumstances where a possible attack should be expected.

I also understand that players form alliances for various reasons and although I am sympathetic concerning alliances formed to counter gang attacking, permanent alliances haven't ever been formally condoned to the best of my knowledge.

TR

TR i do understand what your saying and strongly support it.
But i think that you may be mixing 2 different things.

1st on the other thread... I do suggest the formations option, and that it would bring advantages to the game, including LOS (even though the LOS was advanced by another player in that thread).

2nd with a Diplomacy Window, i just state that it would help in keeping track of of alliances, naps, and warfare between players. It would also help players that are allied to not hinder the movements of his allied troops in joint operations.

Now in no place, am i saying that the ethics of the players should be changed, nor am i advancing ideas just to help my case. I put foward ideas for the evaluation of all the players from WOL and to see what do they think of them, or if they could bring anything useful to the game, nothing more.