UPDATE: GOLD FREE ELITE CHALLENGE MAPS - REAL TIME STATS AND MORE

Indeed, even with additionnal starting resources, it's good to have between 24 or 48 hours of peace, in order for people to actually move between country, reposition, planning, or more simply, to actually produce military units without being steamrolled without the slightest possibility of reacting.

0 hostility (both AI and Human) is good i guess. The truce is mostly : "get the units on the field" + "prepare a strategy".

If there is additional resources, in my humble opinion, a 2 days peace before the heat of the challenge is perfect

Most of our alliance & internal matches so far have had a 6 or 9 day starting truce. This is so each alliance can build troops to match their preferred strategy and the war doesn't start and end with only the starting infantry. With a day 6/9 truce, you usually get to see a combination of MAA, Mobile & Towed Artillery, every naval units except Cruisers, Both ASF & SF, various armor types, etc. And unless there's various starting troop templates to choose from at the start of a game, there's no way other than a starting truce to have the same flexibility over troop composition.

I think 24-48 hrs truce should enforced by the Peace Timer and then whatever additional truce time the alliances agree to should be unenforced by staff and able to be "dishonorably" broken by either alliance at any time without penalty. 1.) We've had pretty good results with unenforced starting truces as honor rules, and 2.) allowing for surprise truce breaks is more realistic.

I do hope that alliances will not go to such an extent of poor sportsmanship, to consider gentleman agreement breaking as a fair move toward their partners. But yes, no human enforcement. Dear God, if you have mercy, don"t let this kind of alliance survive without tremendous 24/24 pain behind their neck

If some one violates the agreement just make them famous in here.

Normally such issues are made by accidents or by badly imformed players, of course bad sportmanship can also happen.

I never played alliance matches yet, though 48 hours would be very short to produce you army, you need to research first and build necessary building first. So if you don't want to generate armies in advance after wishlists...

We have option to change as long as both team can agree. From 2 to 11 days is what we have done so far. But to have war start on day 7 has been the most used .

I guess here come the questions:
- What will Dorado 'police'
- What options will be defineable by map creation
- What will alliances have to police themselves (if there is anything left that still needs policing)

I can answer from a moderation behalf, on the memory of the old supremacy tournaments :


What will Dorado 'police', aka what we, moderators, will police : the same things than in other matches : multiaccount, insults, this kind of things. This is, i guess, desirable in order to keep teams from being too heated and forgetting the courtesy needed for such sportive event.


Wht options will be defineable by map creation : In theory, none, because it will created by the team following a standardised process → any rule or setting changing from one map to another created by the staff could (and will) be accused of being unfair to others, or advantaging X/Y setting, and if there is something Dorado doesn't want, it's to play the social assistants for disgruntled overcompetitive people. We know they will exist and we know they will harass : we need to have a rigid set of rules that are universal and recognised by Dorado as "legit" for gaining points.

On the top of that, any agreement between the teams IN ADDITION to those rules is bound by "gentleman agreement", and so, isn't, and will never be, policed by Dorado.


If an alliance comes to me saying : "Opulon ! Opulon, X alliance had agreed with us to not use nukes, but they used them ! They are cheaters, they must be disqualified", i will answer "Fuck off", to speak crudely. The said alliance will feel betrayed, will hate me, but they will be outside the boundaries of the official competition. To be honest, i feel that if two alliances agree on extra rules, they accept the fact that if the other alliance have no honor, they will be considered legit anyway.

I trust the human nature to quickly destroy this kind of expanded agreement beyond the scops of a few alliances that respect each other enough.

- What will alliances have to police themselves (if there is anything left that still needs policing) : If they add no extra rules, i'd say nothing. Plug&Play.


Sorry for the general rudeness, but i'm still a little bit traumatised by my own experience of admining a "community friendly competitive event" with "agreed rules"

If an alliance tends to break those gentlemen agreements, they will most likely get black listed in our community, so they will only find prey beyond new alliances at some point I suppose.

Though my question about options was more about stuff like: Will alliances be able to define truce times 'vs players' and 'vs AI' like it is possible in Supremacy? Or can we understand it as follows: truce times will be standarized.

"If an alliance tends to break those gentlemen agreements, they will most likely get black listed in our community, so they will only find prey beyond new alliances at some point I suppose."

In Supremacy, you have many alliances that spam-gold to win their challenges, or break such agreements, or use foul-inspired methods to win without even fighting (like starting the game before agreed date), get to the top 40, and still find easy prey to continue their farm. The established alliances DO blacklist them, but their prey is new, naïve alliances, or more simply, international alliances that just don't know them.

This said, as Dorado keeps control of game spawning... If we see such things in the long run, it may be easy to just refuse them the privilege of such elite tiers challenges, as if they were "expelled" from the federation. But on this, i don't think Germanico would agree.

Except if the alliance is south korean

Yeah, but this is not Supremacy, gold will be not an issue hear, so it will be much harder to exploit newer alliances with breaking of such agreements, at least I hope. Of course some people will always find new ways of exploitation, but hopefully non as 'fruitful' as the issues we had in Supremacy.

At least I would think, that the gold issues was always the biggest problem in such 'foul plays'. So I keep hoping for best with this unique offer.

Yes, i concur. Still, we must not grow naïve just because our long-term strategy for our alliances to strive and stand the test of time includes being tight on our promises, and benevolent .

"Look at the bitter mod, seeing ennemies everywhere" --> "The shadows, they move !"

WE make very good use of CoN news and Screen shots to help settle and bumps and border clashes. We try very hard to avoid unit lose on both sides . This has been the most prevalent issue, and a few uses of gold . That will be a non issue now . One thing we have done is try to keep the CoN News clear for the leaders and XOs only to deal with issues. We do all are trash talking of discord ! This is a great help to all our Alliances

Really looking forward to this. Keep it rolling!

We would need to know from you:
a) how many resources would you like on this map (22 player world map extra balanced for no-gold-competition) - -Being able to build in every city all the time with both resource slots working is too much. Keep it strategic (do I want 10 Lv1 Mech Inf or 5 Lv3?). I also like the use of AI Provincial/City resources as a way to focus initial expansion on key areas. 2 day truce to get everyone in game.

b) would you like this map to be normal time?- Yes

c) would you like to have all researches available (no unlock day)? No. I do like the idea of starting on day 3 or 6 on the tree though.

d) would you like to have researches faster than vanilla (eg. 2x or 4x as fast)- No unless you can start with your doctrines at Lv1

e) AI and Insurgents - how would you like them served? (not at all - only light/passive - full on aggro)- Agressive AI & Light Insurgents

f) being an Elite Competitive Mode - what should the minimum rank be? I think both leaders should have to be security council members at a min and it have nothing to do with rank. If you really want to take it to the next level then all players need to be SC to join. Support the business.

Dave Logan
Leader, The Rainmen

Locking gold free alliance challenges behind SC sounds like a bad idea. Not everyone can afford it.