Now I'm going to disagree with you Sam.

The problem with being allowed to defend your allies from war-like actions is that ... "where does it stop"? So imagine this scenario. So A, B and C are allies. P, Q and R are also allies. A farms P. P wars A. B sees that his ally A is under siege, so he steps in to war P. But now, Q sees that A and B are warring his allies and now he jumps in. A and B now ask C to join in. P and Q brings in R. Each new person in the war now brings in their next ally, who in turn brings in their ally...

So where does it stop? Until it becomes an Alliance server?

Wars on solo servers should remain solo-based, and no in-game ally should be allowed to interfere. If one country tries to mess with 2 countries, then both should be allowed to retaliate/war him, though not in a coordinated fashion (i.e attack at the same time).

Like Tourney...Get rid of ALL ingame alliances ( offense already gone - which sux)

Or go Alliance server.

You realize the problem here, right? It makes finding suckers to leech from paramount. The game becomes to some degree a contest of finding saps that'll give you tech or jets. Even if everyone doesn't do it, the people that want to win will HAVE to do it. Ask Xinhuan to tell you how powerful this stuff is if you don't believe me. OAs are just extremely overpowered but tech leeching also has an upwards spiral effect, you get the free tech, so your income is higher, so you can buy more tech and military and grab more land, and so on. And from here, with some people coaxing these leeches out of people, mostly newbs I'd suppose, it's just a short step to someone hitting up a friend who is a pro for a leech, until eventually if anyone wants to win they might need to get a whole support team flying with them to give them the tech and jets it would take to be competitive.

You're talking about GDI here? Sure, I see what you're saying but you've seen what happens to people not in GDI first hand. What happened to Billy, what I think happened to you if I heard correctly. There might be a better solution compared to what we have now (giving grabbed countries the option to send up to 1 missile or do up to 3 special attacks or something, who knows) but if you remove the restrictions completely, these are two month long sets that can go up in smoke just because. You don't even have to have attacked a guy, but he just doesn't like your name. I quit the game for over 5 years because every round I tried to play I was being AB'd, etc., by random countries. Round goes down the drain and you have to wait 30+ days for the next and by then you forget to sign back up or have moved on.

hi

Xinhuan, I understand where you're coming from there, but in the example you cited, all of the people involved (with perhaps the exception of player P getting farmed) chose to go to war. Nobody can force anyone on this server to go to war if they don't want to, thanks to the way GDI works here. That's IMO one of the positive aspects of how GDI works on this server.

Again though, I don't have a major problem with allies not being allowed to help each other on this server... that was what I thought the rule was when I started playing here again last reset. In fact, last reset I declined to help a defensive ally who requested my help, citing the rule against teamwork. Now, that guy in particular I probably wouldn't have helped anyway, since he started the fight and kept just in general doing dumb things. But even if that other guy had been Bill, I wouldn't have helped him in a 1v1 fight, regardless of who started it. Personally, I'd prefer a looser interpretation of the teaming rules than that, but I don't have a major problem with it.

What I don't like right now, is that we seem to have a bit of a lack of clarity (or maybe I'm just new enough here to not be clear). By the rules I thought this server ran under, the two countries who besieged Bill would have been deleted. They were not, so I engaged the second aggressor. By strict interpretation of what I thought the rules were, I should also be deleted. Out of the four countries involved, Bill's should be the only one not wearing purple right now... IF there is a rule against allies assisting each other militarily. However, I don't think even all of the admins agree on exactly how the rules should be interpreted.

blid, I wasn't speaking solely about GDI when I talked about removing the consequences of aggression. As I mentioned, I think the way GDI works on this server does do some pretty good things.. mainly ensuring that those who really want to just netgain can do so. I guess what I'm seeing that I don't like is.... more and more it seems to me that across all servers, rules keep getting changed to give the victim of a land grab less options. I don't like that commit espionage was added to the list of actions which are prohibited by GDI. Couple that with the elimination of offensive allies (while defensive allies still exist) and what realistic option does a guy 1/3 the size of his attacker have? Besides wait, of course. I think you're onto something with the idea to give land grab victims some other options, while still limiting them so that a guy doesn't get completely blown out of the water for performing one land grab.

Also, yes I do understand that a top tier player who has another top player letting him leech tech presents a pretty insurmountable obstacle. What I don't understand is why it is so terrible for others to have to work the same diplomacy in order to compete. Let's say I've got a friend running a small techer, and I'm running a big commie... a combination defense / research pact between us benefits both of us. The techer gains from the defense I have on hand, I gain from his research. That's a dynamic I've used, and I don't consider it leeching or cheap at all. I'm giving up something (the potential for a much bigger, more powerful D ally) for a different benefit (tech)

I don't know.. The way I see it, we already have one pure solo netgaining only server (tourney). We have some that are geared towards teamwork, and others that are in the middle. I like that. I don't like seeing those servers that are a fun mix slowly being converted to another number-crunching-only server. And don't get me wrong, I like the number-crunching aspect of this game... I just think if that's the only thing you're doing, it can get a bit stale. Adding some actual personal interaction between players makes things a bit more fun, IMO.

One last thing... blid, as I was reading my own words which you quoted, I realized my repeated use of the word "you" may have been interpreted to mean you personally. That's not how I meant it. The repeated reference to "you" is the generic "somebody"

Have just briefly read your post and might have more to comment on later, but you are correct that if two people coordinate against one they should be deleted. It's just hard to be sure in some cases, including this one in which I'm not sure why I'm supposed to be convinced. I am not sure if you have some much more convincing evidence I'm not privy to. Sometimes you can just run into two jackasses that want to fight you and that aren't coordinating, though.

One other quick comment, espionage had to be removed because it was the mirror image of what you're not happy about: you don't like grabbed countries having no recourse, but big countries had no recourse against espionage. People could steal billions of dollars in tech for no reason or for a single tap, and the only option was to just let it happen or to go to war. It was impossible to prevent by pumping spies. And this was happening quite a bit in frequent rounds, effecting finishing orders and dropping several people out of the race when they chose to war.

Not quite. What if A-B-C has a larger group of friends/allies (say they had A-B-C-....G-H) than the P-Q-R group? It would simply devolve down to clan wars without an official clan tag. Sure, country R could choose not to get involved, so the A-H group can now just terrorize the server if there is no larger group of players willing to involve themselves. Sounds like Alliance? Clan X farms Clan Y, other clans don't want to help Y? Betcha.

Allowing allies to help would dilute the solo-play feature of Primary, and devolve down to clan-play.

Techers are weak enough already, don't touch our res alliances!

Sam and Bill are one and the same, discuss.

Quite the contrary, removing tech allies will buff techers.

Research allies lower the tech price because it generates more tech out of thin air. It also makes having 3 research allies necessary to compete on even footing against any other techer that also has 3.

If you take out research allies, there will be ~30% less tech in circulation and tech prices will go up over 30% (if the price elasticity is 1), so there won't be any noticeable effects for techers (roughly same income), BUT since everyone else pays more, it weakens non-techer strats (slower growth for them since tech is more expensive), and is an indirect buff to techers.

Well, in that case, death to R.A.'s!

WHILE WE DO IN FACT SHARE SIMILAR DNA, LEGEND HAS IT THAT I WAS SIRED BY THE PROPANE DELIVERY MAN WHILE DADDY WAS AWAY AT WORK. SO, *NEARLY* ONE AND THE SAME. AN ARGUMENT COULD BE MADE THAT SAM AND I ARE ONE AND THE SANE, BUT IT WOULD PROBABLY LEAD TO A HEATED DISPUTE AND ULTIMATELY VIOLENCE AS NEITHER OF US WOULD WISH TO CONFESS TO SUFFERING FROM BOUTS OF SANITY!

HA!
BILL

So, question.

Retribution, now dead hit a bunch of people multiple times, a couple of them special attacked him until he was dead.

I had been attacked but normally retal with spy ops but he didn't have anything worth stealing so I was waiting for him to come out of DR so I could toss a days worth of Chems his way and then leave him out to be farmed.

I advised the two guys hitting him that was my intention. If they a
Had listened to me and we had been able to drag his death out for a long time, would that have been coordination?

Cheers
Qazulight

1) He wasn't killed, he was deleted for cheating (assisting #2)
2) You can chem someone while they're in DR, it doesn't matter

Missiles aren't affected by DR. Nor do they affect DR.

As to whether that would be coordination, its somewhat gray, but if you had a valid reason for throwing the CMs, then probably not. The 2 guys hitting him didn't try to kill him, it is just ABs.