Treaties

Freon22 · Post by **Freon22** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 3:56 am

Your right HK, I didn't not start this thread to start anything about putting treaties in the game. I question it because I am doing some coding of my own and am running some test on a few ideas that I am working on. If the test comes out good then I would post the idea, if not then I would not. We all know that treaties they way they work within the game is trouble.

Post by **Baalzamon** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 3:54 pm

thats your opinion, personally, i thought that the NAPs worked wonderfully well in SM, and why not in SMR? It makes the game harder, as you all obviously like since there are only a few of us in favor of a fast game, and so what if two alliances take over a galaxy? Look at this game, Crimson and Clover managed to take over a galaxy themselves and occupied each planet, and controlled the ports and had amazing routes, but mined them so well that only their own alliance would be able to trade. That was impressive, and not at all different then the "threat" that you guys speak of with an NAP...I know a couple people outside of the game, and we are in different alliances, but agree not to hunt eachother, yet an NAP would be better.,...not to mention the description of the game, to bring the universe to peace...i know just as well as anyone that no one really trys that, but if thats what the game is supposedly about, wouldn't an NAP help out with that? Saying no to an NAP because it would promote peace within the game is contradicting the game itsself. I'm sorry for such a long winded response, but its something I feel strongly about.

Ardbeg · Post by **Ardbeg** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 4:14 pm

As HK said, the problem is not the politics involved, but the minefields.

Post by **Baalzamon** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 7:50 pm

which does nothing but increase the difficulty of the game, which you all must enjoy immensly, because very few of you played SM and used the glitches, and even fewer like fast games because they supposedly make it too easy, so minefields made by more then one alliance should be nothing but another difficulty to overcome. If you don't like mines, go play TDZK, where someone could be kicked out of his alliance for using mines while hunting. I know that from experience

Post by **OmegaRenegade** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 2:16 am

I dunno, I never had fun taking 200 turns to move 40 sectors, but whatever pops your cork I guess

Volrath · Post by **Volrath** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 11:43 am

baalzamon, hk is not talking about mining a planetary gal, he's talking about mining an entire neutral gal and locking all planetary gals connecting to it, all weaps and locations and routes inside all those gals... the locked almost 1/3 of the map...

Post by **Baalzamon** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:11 am

alright, but, honestly, how many of you played SM when it was still going on? the NAPs existed, but as for land locking ports, and shops and planets, etc, it never happened, at least, in the last two games that i can remember, and even if that was to happen, theres a little thing called the jump drive

Post by **B.O.B.** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 5:43 am

Baalzamon wrote:alright, but, honestly, how many of you played SM when it was still going on? the NAPs existed, but as for land locking ports, and shops and planets, etc, it never happened, at least, in the last two games that i can remember, and even if that was to happen, theres a little thing called the jump drive

Well then you obviously never played MY:1.

Also, not every race has JD-enabled ships, neither can most afford a FU to fly around in.

Ardbeg · Post by **Ardbeg** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:42 pm

As BOB mentioned, MY (at least certain parts of it) were a nightmare for anyone not in or allied with HoA. It wasn't just neutrals either - all of Alskant was pretty effectively mined down except a few sectors around fed.

Freon22 · Post by **Freon22** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 4:09 pm

Ok I see that this thread is not going to die. I should have PMed a few members to get the information I wanted.

The type of treaty I was thinking about is a (MAP) Mutual Attack Pact. It does nothing for mines, so if you had a MAP with another alliance and were doing PR or PB and someone from the other team that you have the MAP with set a mine. When you entered that sector you would hit that mine just like anyone else that is not of the alliance that set it. So if two teams did attack another alliance together they would have to be very careful on how they used their mines.

The reason I was thinking about something like a MAP is so small alliances could team up and attack larger alliances without giving up their identity.

As it stans now large alliances have nothing to fear from small alliances. They can't build a mine field strong enough, their planets are weak. They can't get enough of their team mates online at the same time to do any type of an attack on a large active alliance.

I was also thinking that if two alliances should make a MAP then they should take a hit in accuracy of their weapons if they OP together. I haven't worked out all the details but those are the lines of why I asked about the types of tready that we had in the old SM days.