Diplomacy

I my opinion, the diplomacy system could use some work and it could make the game a lot better.
As things are now, at the start of the game, about 60% of the players send an alliance request to ALL other players. Peace isn't really used much in my experience.
After a while when conquering neutral countries isn't possible anymore, some alliances are broken, leaving a web of screwed up alliances.

For example:

Player 1, 2 and 3 are all allied with eachother.
Player 1 and 2 declare war.
Player 3 is still allied to both.

If this happens with more players it leaves a political mess and because of this, most alliances are more or less worthless.

SOLUTION:
- All players start out neutral (peace)
- Declare war when you want to fight someone.
- If the above example takes place, player 3 will have to choose ONE side.
- If a 4th player joins, he cannot form an alliance with both player 1 and 2. He can only choose one side.

If you'd like to add something, please post your ideas and opinions please.

We really need some kind of penalty or price to make allies. I'm tired of what Wessel describes happening in every game. People just do not fight unless they are 90%+ sure they will win (so its 4 ally Vs 1, or a person who is rank 2 or lower), I guess the risk out weighs the gains at the moment.

I want to have a more creative idea than add a monetary penality but I'm all out of bright ideas at the moment.

Maybe have it so you can't ally with someone unless you are currently at peace with them? I don't think a hard limit to the number of alliances one can make is a good idea, because players should have the option to end the game in allied truce if they want to.

I have said it before, I'll say it again. Changing the alliance system will accomplish NOTHING other then wasting time that could have been spent on developing shit that actually matters. You can't make players fight if they don't want to. Using the OP's example, if we put penalties or whatever on alliances. Say player 1 and 2 fight, player 3 just mutually agrees with both "I'm not involved, you two slug it out", player 3 remains "allied" to both players through a NAP (Non-Aggression Pact) and the outcome is the exact same.

Players don't need a game mechanic to ally up, they can do so simply through verbal agreements. So yeah, these threads about changing the ally system really should stop, since they don't accomplish anything. I mean I'm all for voicing suggestions and shit, but no matter what you do this situation will never be resolved because, as I have stated, players wont fight eachother if they don't feel like it. They don't need a game mechanic to remain friendly to one another.

In the end, if you put penalties on alliances, alliances simply wont be used and NAP's will be the standard form of allying players. Nothing changes except now the dev's time has been wasted implementing something that makes absolutely no difference.

Haven't we already discussed all of it in another thread? Also, there will be penalties for having more than one alliance (the more you have, the bigger penalty).

All that'd do is make Peace the new Alliance, and people will still just go "let's not fight". Can't make people fight, no matter how many penalties you stick on alliances. Would be best to leave them as is, since they're the most versatile now.

Well we have had this on another thread, but i think the idea is that there will be some advantages to having certain people allied. something like having allies defend your cities and such. also i sudgest they remove the sending cash at peace option when all of this goes into effect.

Alright, sorry for bringing this issue up again.

I still don't see why this is all necessary, it's hardly game-breaking to have one person allied to two people who are fighting. It's not like it gives any advantages. Only time it becomes unfair is when you get ganked, but no ammount of penalties will change that. Since they'll just gank you without being officially allied. There's no way to change this to get the result you want, and there's no reason to bother. I really don't get why I've seen this subject numerous times lately. It's like people honestly think they can make players not cooperate just by removing the ability to use alliances.