"Peace" variant

Wouldn't it make more sense if people at peace can't go through each other's walls?

If they are going through each other's walls, they should probably be allied anyway.



By making this change, it would allow players to have more protection against any player they feel threatened by (if that person were to betray the player). Also gives a better sense of security (otherwise they can just bluff a peace treaty by sending money etc., then move stacks of troops into your territory.


Share your thoughts!

Indeed, is both annoying and detrimental to you winning when people whom you've peaced with cross your walls and backstab you.

But this suggestion would fix it.
However, part of your strategy is choosing whom you peace with, not just ally. But then what is the point of peacing if it gives you no control over what the players you've peaced with do? ( rhetorical question)

Written by e Mare, 30.10.2015 at 15:40

But this suggestion would fix it.
However, part of your strategy is choosing whom you peace with, not just ally. But then what is the point of peacing if it gives you no control over what the players you've peaced with do? ( rhetorical question)

The answer is in your hearth!!!
You weren't expecting an answer, were you? Deal with it.

On topic: Support, I hate when they move stealths through me in that way...

What if there was an option to sign non aggression pacts, in addition to signing peace, the non aggression pact would work like peace except you wouldn't be able to go through walls, send money, and do some of the other things you can do with peace, all it would do would be make it so you can't attack each other

Written by Viruslegion, 30.10.2015 at 20:33

What if there was an option to sign non aggression pacts, in addition to signing peace, the non aggression pact would work like peace except you wouldn't be able to go through walls, send money, and do some of the other things you can do with peace, all it would do would be make it so you can't attack each other

Maybe so, but I kind of think not add another diplomacy option, and stick with peace (that doesn't allow people to go through your walls)

How about this......either you are allied or you are at war with the other players, end of story. Peace would only exist first turn and while going from Ally to war, and would not be an option to offer another player. Ya know, friend or foe, no in between.

This is very much needed

No support, the idea is you are allowing them to cross to attack the common enemy. If he is going solely for you that is unfortunate and unpeace him.

Written by Xenosapien, 03.11.2015 at 12:11

No support, the idea is you are allowing them to cross to attack the common enemy. If he is going solely for you that is unfortunate and unpeace him.

If you are letting people cross through your lands to attack another enemy, you need to be allied with them. There is currently no diplomacy option that prevents both attacking a person AND crossing through his walls. However, rather than creating a new diplomacy option, why not just incorporate it into peace treaties?

Makes more sense that way anyway...

Peace would then BE that diplomacy option, that prevents attacking for at least 1 turn, AND prevents them from going through your walls.

Hope you agree...

No. Peace is quite literally a temporary alliance, and players should be encouraged to stab other players they have peace with. It's not a sign of goodwill, at least in my experience, but a simple "why don't we not fight each other for a while" gesture.