Ultimatums

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • This would be similar to a province/city swap, but with a catch to make it easier to catch those abusing it. A trade would be put in an article as an ultimatum, for instance you must give 1000 rare materials for peace or a certain city/province in exchange for peace. These requests could also be timed, i.e you have 24 hours or to war.

      However, these requests will all be public, so game moderators and other players will be able to see obvious multi-accounting. Alternatively, there could be a maximum victory point value for ultimatums.

      Thoughts, questions, concerns, suggestions, existential quandaries?
    • I think it would be largely ineffective.

      It's a war game where only a few are left at the end, so there's not much utility in giving in to this.

      example: if you threaten me for say 1000 rare materials, I say "F*** You", we go to war, and you may even get my rare producing city, but you still don't get 1000 rare.

      If you aren't strong enough to keep from getting overrun by an enemy, you might as well take as many units of his with you on your exit.
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • Dealer of Death wrote:

      I think it would be largely ineffective.

      It's a war game where only a few are left at the end, so there's not much utility in giving in to this.

      example: if you threaten me for say 1000 rare materials, I say "F*** You", we go to war, and you may even get my rare producing city, but you still don't get 1000 rare.

      If you aren't strong enough to keep from getting overrun by an enemy, you might as well take as many units of his with you on your exit.
      Largely, yes, but not completely. This was prompted by a game between two large coalitions where neither wanted to go to war (as far as I know.) It would provide a more layered approach to warfare, and not everyone is as brave as you.
    • This game is about risk taking. Having coalitions just stare at each other and occasionally exchange territory isn't what CON is for. Ultimately, it's a game about warfare- the diplomacy system exists to make wars happen, not the other way around.

      Also, it would just be too hard to balance such a feature between "too weak so nobody uses it" and "constantly exploited by multi accounters".
    • JoseFStal1n wrote:

      This game is about risk taking. Having coalitions just stare at each other and occasionally exchange territory isn't what CON is for. Ultimately, it's a game about warfare- the diplomacy system exists to make wars happen, not the other way around.

      Also, it would just be too hard to balance such a feature between "too weak so nobody uses it" and "constantly exploited by multi accounters".
      Yeah...This is not Sim City...
      Alle sagten: Das geht nicht. Dann kam einer, der wusste das nicht und hat es einfach gemacht.