Diplomacy.

I have to say something about the diplomacy.
Since the update of peace on first turn many things changed in afterwind.
In part that was a good update, peace on first turn improved a lot the gameplay in normal games.
But this ruins in part scenarios, for example, walls that you draw in the scenario creator are just useless.

My first suggestion:

This was already said in the forum, add a system to keep the peace with a player, if in the next turn the peace path will be auto-broken, whats the point of war buttom? change it for a keep-peace buttom or something like that lol.

And the second suggestion, is for scenarios.

We need to select the diplomacy situation between two players.
Player A is in war with player B, have a peace path with C and D and an alliance with E.
But player A is free to make peace with B, broke the peace with C and D and the alliance with E.

Then someone will ask whats the point of this?
Why we need a system like this if you can just do what you want?
Why you dont just make teams?

First, teams are too unflexible for some scenarios, paths were created and destroyed in the time, an ally can be your enemy in the future and your enemy your ally.

I say this especially for role-play games in afterwind, in those types of games players dont need to be destroyed, just follow surrender conditions, you usually talk in chat before doing anything in diplomacy, you are being a character, you have an enemy for X reason, but he dont needs to keep being your enemy forever. There is the normal game some scenarios of UN, most of the games fail because afterwind have muchs fun-ruiners-noobs.
Something like this will improve the role-play games, you can unite your forces with an old enemy or rival against a stronger one in bad times, you can broke your alliance with your ally if you think that their actions are being inmoral.

Also, im proposing this just as alternitave.

Most of the scenarios should keep the classical team system, USA betraying Allies and Joining Axis is something that i dont want to see lol.

Kirjutas raetahcodeupon, 27.10.2012 at 17:54

I have to say something about the diplomacy.
Since the update of peace on first turn many things changed in afterwind.
In part that was a good update, peace on first turn improved a lot the gameplay in normal games.
But this ruins in part scenarios, for example, walls that you draw in the scenario creator are just useless.

My first suggestion:

This was already said in the forum, add a system to keep the peace with a player, if in the next turn the peace path will be auto-broken, whats the point of war buttom? change it for a keep-peace buttom or something like that lol.

And the second suggestion, is for scenarios.

We need to select the diplomacy situation between two players.
Player A is in war with player B, have a peace path with C and D and an alliance with E.
But player A is free to make peace with B, broke the peace with C and D and the alliance with E.

Then someone will ask whats the point of this?
Why we need a system like this if you can just do what you want?
Why you dont just make teams?

First, teams are too unflexible for some scenarios, paths were created and destroyed in the time, an ally can be your enemy in the future and your enemy your ally.

I say this especially for role-play games in afterwind, in those types of games players dont need to be destroyed, just follow surrender conditions, you usually talk in chat before doing anything in diplomacy, you are being a character, you have an enemy for X reason, but he dont needs to keep being your enemy forever. There is the normal game some scenarios of UN, most of the games fail because afterwind have muchs fun-ruiners-noobs.
Something like this will improve the role-play games, you can unite your forces with an old enemy or rival against a stronger one in bad times, you can broke your alliance with your ally if you think that their actions are being inmoral.

Also, im proposing this just as alternitave.

Most of the scenarios should keep the classical team system, USA betraying Allies and Joining Axis is something that i dont want to see lol.

Summary:

1). i want a option to extend peace in turn 1

2). New Diplomacy System:
Players in Groups A and B can ally or fight players in Group C
But Players in Group A and B can not ally each other.

Kirjutas Tundy, 27.10.2012 at 22:47

Kirjutas raetahcodeupon, 27.10.2012 at 17:54

I have to say something about the diplomacy.
Since the update of peace on first turn many things changed in afterwind.
In part that was a good update, peace on first turn improved a lot the gameplay in normal games.
But this ruins in part scenarios, for example, walls that you draw in the scenario creator are just useless.

My first suggestion:

This was already said in the forum, add a system to keep the peace with a player, if in the next turn the peace path will be auto-broken, whats the point of war buttom? change it for a keep-peace buttom or something like that lol.

And the second suggestion, is for scenarios.

We need to select the diplomacy situation between two players.
Player A is in war with player B, have a peace path with C and D and an alliance with E.
But player A is free to make peace with B, broke the peace with C and D and the alliance with E.

Then someone will ask whats the point of this?
Why we need a system like this if you can just do what you want?
Why you dont just make teams?

First, teams are too unflexible for some scenarios, paths were created and destroyed in the time, an ally can be your enemy in the future and your enemy your ally.

I say this especially for role-play games in afterwind, in those types of games players dont need to be destroyed, just follow surrender conditions, you usually talk in chat before doing anything in diplomacy, you are being a character, you have an enemy for X reason, but he dont needs to keep being your enemy forever. There is the normal game some scenarios of UN, most of the games fail because afterwind have muchs fun-ruiners-noobs.
Something like this will improve the role-play games, you can unite your forces with an old enemy or rival against a stronger one in bad times, you can broke your alliance with your ally if you think that their actions are being inmoral.

Also, im proposing this just as alternitave.

Most of the scenarios should keep the classical team system, USA betraying Allies and Joining Axis is something that i dont want to see lol.

Summary:

1). i want a option to extend peace in turn 1

2). New Diplomacy System:
Players in Groups A and B can ally or fight players in Group C
But Players in Group A and B can not ally each other.

Your summary is wrong in the point 2.
I just want an option to select the situation of the players (war, peace, alliance) in scenarios before the game started, without a system of team.

From what you said about the new diplomacy, it sounds like you just want to have locked diplomacy when you first enter the game. Is that correct or incorrect? If it's incorrect, then I'm hearing this correctly: you're asking for a diplomacy system we already have.

Kirjutas Sinjid, 29.10.2012 at 14:31

From what you said about the new diplomacy, it sounds like you just want to have locked diplomacy when you first enter the game. Is that correct or incorrect? If it's incorrect, then I'm hearing this correctly: you're asking for a diplomacy system we already have.

Maybe my english is bad to explain this.
War, peace, alliance...
Those are the three states of the system of diplomacy.

There are actually 3 types of games:
*Team Games, where alliances are unbreakable and new alliances cant not be formed.
*Game without alliances, alliances cant not be formed (captain obvious spirit!).
*Default game, you can make and break alliances and peace paths.

My idea is just for scenarios, it is practically like a normal game, you can make and break alliances, the only difference is that you start with alliances and peace paths that you can keep or break with completly freedom, this is completly pointless for the typical way to play afterwind, this is thinked for other type of persons.

Kirjutas raetahcodeupon, 29.10.2012 at 15:00

Kirjutas Sinjid, 29.10.2012 at 14:31

From what you said about the new diplomacy, it sounds like you just want to have locked diplomacy when you first enter the game. Is that correct or incorrect? If it's incorrect, then I'm hearing this correctly: you're asking for a diplomacy system we already have.

My idea is just for scenarios, it is practically like a normal game, you can make and break alliances, the only difference is that you start with alliances and peace paths that you can keep or break with completly freedom, this is completly pointless for the typical way to play afterwind, this is thinked for other type of persons.

They already have that. You can have diplomacy enabled. I've played a scenario called Mongol Invasion and the creator had free form diplomacy in which all but one mongol horde allied while Europe only had two people allied. (a real game, and a real example)

Kirjutas Sinjid, 29.10.2012 at 15:21

Kirjutas raetahcodeupon, 29.10.2012 at 15:00

Kirjutas Sinjid, 29.10.2012 at 14:31

From what you said about the new diplomacy, it sounds like you just want to have locked diplomacy when you first enter the game. Is that correct or incorrect? If it's incorrect, then I'm hearing this correctly: you're asking for a diplomacy system we already have.

My idea is just for scenarios, it is practically like a normal game, you can make and break alliances, the only difference is that you start with alliances and peace paths that you can keep or break with completly freedom, this is completly pointless for the typical way to play afterwind, this is thinked for other type of persons.

They already have that. You can have diplomacy enabled. I've played a scenario called Mongol Invasion and the creator had free form diplomacy in which all but one mongol horde allied while Europe only had two people allied. (a real game, and a real example)

You are wrong.

Kirjutas raetahcodeupon, 30.10.2012 at 11:08

Kirjutas Sinjid, 29.10.2012 at 15:21

Kirjutas raetahcodeupon, 29.10.2012 at 15:00

Kirjutas Sinjid, 29.10.2012 at 14:31

From what you said about the new diplomacy, it sounds like you just want to have locked diplomacy when you first enter the game. Is that correct or incorrect? If it's incorrect, then I'm hearing this correctly: you're asking for a diplomacy system we already have.

My idea is just for scenarios, it is practically like a normal game, you can make and break alliances, the only difference is that you start with alliances and peace paths that you can keep or break with completly freedom, this is completly pointless for the typical way to play afterwind, this is thinked for other type of persons.

They already have that. You can have diplomacy enabled. I've played a scenario called Mongol Invasion and the creator had free form diplomacy in which all but one mongol horde allied while Europe only had two people allied. (a real game, and a real example)

You are wrong.

He is right.

He is not right, you cant make what im saying.

JaredThinks, you can make scenarios, then try to make what im saying, if you do it i give you another premium feature.

Hazardouz, dont be angry, but im trying to be objective judging an idea.

Kirjutas raetahcodeupon, 30.10.2012 at 14:06

He is not right, you cant make what im saying.

JaredThinks, you can make scenarios, then try to make what im saying, if you do it i give you another premium feature.

Hazardouz, dont be angry, but im trying to be objective judging an idea.

When do you want to see the scenario?

I need to be convinced this exists also... and agree that it should.

Kirjutas Sinjid, 30.10.2012 at 16:28

Kirjutas raetahcodeupon, 30.10.2012 at 14:06

He is not right, you cant make what im saying.

JaredThinks, you can make scenarios, then try to make what im saying, if you do it i give you another premium feature.

Hazardouz, dont be angry, but im trying to be objective judging an idea.

When do you want to see the scenario?

I really want to see it, you at the moment dont have any scenario published...

Kirjutas raetahcodeupon, 31.10.2012 at 11:12

Kirjutas Sinjid, 30.10.2012 at 16:28

Kirjutas raetahcodeupon, 30.10.2012 at 14:06

He is not right, you cant make what im saying.

JaredThinks, you can make scenarios, then try to make what im saying, if you do it i give you another premium feature.

Hazardouz, dont be angry, but im trying to be objective judging an idea.

When do you want to see the scenario?

I really want to see it, you at the moment dont have any scenario published...

Perhaps he just means you can play a scenario with normal free form diplomacy i.e. a non team scenario? And what you and I mean, I think, is a scenario that starts with alliances and peaces and wars already but that you can change them?

Kirjutas raetahcodeupon, 31.10.2012 at 11:12

Kirjutas Sinjid, 30.10.2012 at 16:28

Kirjutas raetahcodeupon, 30.10.2012 at 14:06

He is not right, you cant make what im saying.

JaredThinks, you can make scenarios, then try to make what im saying, if you do it i give you another premium feature.

Hazardouz, dont be angry, but im trying to be objective judging an idea.

When do you want to see the scenario?

I really want to see it, you at the moment dont have any scenario published...

It's ugly and I don't want to publish it. Let me know what time you're on. First off, what time zone are you in? I'm in Central, which is GMT/UTC - 5.

Kirjutas Sinjid, 31.10.2012 at 15:24

Kirjutas raetahcodeupon, 31.10.2012 at 11:12

Kirjutas Sinjid, 30.10.2012 at 16:28

Kirjutas raetahcodeupon, 30.10.2012 at 14:06

He is not right, you cant make what im saying.

JaredThinks, you can make scenarios, then try to make what im saying, if you do it i give you another premium feature.

Hazardouz, dont be angry, but im trying to be objective judging an idea.

When do you want to see the scenario?

I really want to see it, you at the moment dont have any scenario published...

It's ugly and I don't want to publish it. Let me know what time you're on. First off, what time zone are you in? I'm in Central, which is GMT/UTC - 5.

Excuses, excuses...
I live in spain, and i cant know when im going to be online, come on, publish it

Kirjutas Cherse, 31.10.2012 at 12:11

Kirjutas raetahcodeupon, 31.10.2012 at 11:12

Kirjutas Sinjid, 30.10.2012 at 16:28

Kirjutas raetahcodeupon, 30.10.2012 at 14:06

He is not right, you cant make what im saying.

JaredThinks, you can make scenarios, then try to make what im saying, if you do it i give you another premium feature.

Hazardouz, dont be angry, but im trying to be objective judging an idea.

When do you want to see the scenario?

I really want to see it, you at the moment dont have any scenario published...

Perhaps he just means you can play a scenario with normal free form diplomacy i.e. a non team scenario? And what you and I mean, I think, is a scenario that starts with alliances and peaces and wars already but that you can change them?

Thats possible.

Kirjutas raetahcodeupon, 31.10.2012 at 15:29

Kirjutas Sinjid, 31.10.2012 at 15:24

Kirjutas raetahcodeupon, 31.10.2012 at 11:12

Kirjutas Sinjid, 30.10.2012 at 16:28

Kirjutas raetahcodeupon, 30.10.2012 at 14:06

He is not right, you cant make what im saying.

JaredThinks, you can make scenarios, then try to make what im saying, if you do it i give you another premium feature.

Hazardouz, dont be angry, but im trying to be objective judging an idea.

When do you want to see the scenario?

I really want to see it, you at the moment dont have any scenario published...

It's ugly and I don't want to publish it. Let me know what time you're on. First off, what time zone are you in? I'm in Central, which is GMT/UTC - 5.

Excuses, excuses...
I live in spain, and i cant know when im going to be online, come on, publish it

There's no excuses. This is a quote from The Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Man's Chest, "Slimy tit" "I've got a jar of dirt! I've got a jar of dirt! I've got a jar of dirt! Guess what's inside of it!" There's proof inside of it.

Get on Afterwind.

"
Excuses, excuses...
I live in spain, and i cant know when im going to be online, come on, publish it "

Hypocrite. You just made an excuse that you can't tell the time in the world, like you can't tell your head from your butt.

Kirjutas Sinjid, 31.10.2012 at 15:33

"
Excuses, excuses...
I live in spain, and i cant know when im going to be online, come on, publish it "

Hypocrite. You just made an excuse that you can't tell the time in the world, like you can't tell your head from your butt.

Ok...
There is only two possible options:

1* My english level is not enough to make you understand what im saying.

2* Your english level is not enought to understand what im saying.

You cant do what im saying.

Kirjutas raetahcodeupon, 31.10.2012 at 15:46

Kirjutas Sinjid, 31.10.2012 at 15:33

"
Excuses, excuses...
I live in spain, and i cant know when im going to be online, come on, publish it "

Hypocrite. You just made an excuse that you can't tell the time in the world, like you can't tell your head from your butt.

Ok...
There is only two possible options:

1* My english level is not enough to make you understand what im saying.

2* Your english level is not enought to understand what im saying.

You cant do what im saying.

you want:

pre-made alliances that can be broken?

Kirjutas Tundy, 31.10.2012 at 17:00

Kirjutas raetahcodeupon, 31.10.2012 at 15:46

Kirjutas Sinjid, 31.10.2012 at 15:33

"
Excuses, excuses...
I live in spain, and i cant know when im going to be online, come on, publish it "

Hypocrite. You just made an excuse that you can't tell the time in the world, like you can't tell your head from your butt.

Ok...
There is only two possible options:

1* My english level is not enough to make you understand what im saying.

2* Your english level is not enought to understand what im saying.

You cant do what im saying.

you want:

pre-made alliances that can be broken?

*CLAPS*
Yes i want that.