Failed Vote More Impactful Diplomacy and Wars

Do you like this idea?


  • Total voters
    14
  • Poll closed .
Reaction score
4
I was looking through the tribe diplomacy title and I read that "the settings are non-binding within the game". This made me wonder if a change/improvement could be made here. This may have been discussed in the past, if so, please excuse me for the redundancy.

I had a couple of ideas of how this may look like.

Basic diplomacy:
This basic diplomacy would simply provide a buff/debuff to attacking enemies/allies. For instance, if a tribe declares enemy status, each day they get an increasing attack bonus (+1% attack at a cap of 10% or something). Similarly, if a tribe breaks ally status, they will get an attack debuff (-10% attack, improving at 1% each day). This may make the diplomacy game a bit more interesting and promote players/tribes to choose their allies more carefully and discourage backstabbing.

An addition to this basic diplomacy could be the addition of attack cooldowns. If a tribe breaks allied status, they cannot attack the other tribe for 24 or 48 hours.

One challenge that this system can pose would be to avoid unilateral agreements (one tribe makes an ally while the other doesn't). This can be addressed by making diplomacy more like the war screen. Where tribes are invited into alliance chains and the results are populated into the diplomacy screen.


Complex diplomacy +Wars:
Semming from the last point I discussed. It would be interesting to see the war screen more involved in impacting the gameplay, specifically in domination worlds. Here are some ideas I was thinking about.

Buffs:
I was thinking about additional tribe buffs. While the current system provides some minor buffs, it does not impact the game in a direct way. My idea would be to have charging buffs. For instance, if the duke calls all tribe members to war he can start a "mobilization phase". This would be a ticking buff to recruitment speed or cost of production. Depending on the strength of the tribe, the mobilization can be more effective or provide better end results. Once "complete mobilization" has been reached, the tribe can declare a formal war and receive attack bonuses for a set number of days (this would help boost OPs).

War Casualties:
This may be harder to implement but is an interesting discussion. I always wondered why severe casualties do not affect the tribe. Perhaps implementing "tribe stability" would address this. For instance, each tribe has "stability/organization". While at peace, this trends upwards, while in a war, this may trend downward. Higher stability provides bonuses such as attack/defense bonuses, recruitment, or production bonuses. If the tribe losses significant troops or villages in one day, the stability will drop by a certain amount. This may promote tribes to seek peace sooner or seek periods of peace. Again, likely more difficult to implement this.

Prolonged wars:
I never enjoyed looking at the war screen and seeing wars that have lasted for 30, 60, or even 90+ days. When I look at the stats, some of the wars have not had any change in conquests or statistics for a month or two. This always rubbed me the wrong way as it seemed ridiculous that my 1mil+ tribe is still at war with the remnants of the enemy tribe, maybe 10-30k points, This made me wonder if these "prolonged wars" can either automatically end in a stalemate or victory for my tribe. This can be a simple calculation of the outcome of the war which decides who the victor is, or if a stalemate occurred.

Hope these ideas can be discussed and improved upon.

Best,
Prussian Jager
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JawJaw

Awesomest CM Ever
Tribal Wars Team
Community Management
Reaction score
2,156
Thank you for your suggestion. I have removed the part about binding diplomacy from your suggestion - this has been suggested and rejected before. We do not intend (in any way) to make Diplomacy binding within the game - backstabs are part of life, also in real-life diplomacy and as a result also part of the game.

Your other suggestion(s) are open for debate and voting!
 

AuroraMoon

Non-stop Poster
Reaction score
166
War Casualties:
This may be harder to implement but is an interesting discussion. I always wondered why severe casualties do not affect the tribe. Perhaps implementing "tribe stability" would address this. For instance, each tribe has "stability/organization". While at peace, this trends upwards, while in a war, this may trend downward. Higher stability provides bonuses such as attack/defense bonuses, recruitment, or production bonuses. If the tribe losses significant troops or villages in one day, the stability will drop by a certain amount. This may promote tribes to seek peace sooner or seek periods of peace. Again, likely more difficult to implement this.

would the bonuses force a downwards spiral for the losing side - as in once your behind theres no chance of recovery??
would a losing side be able to get an underdog buff at some stage??
how much would a successful op impact both sides of a war??
does it also affect allies that you have invited to a war or is it only your own tribes casualties matter??
what are the affects of low stability??
 

DaWolf85

Senior In-Game Staff
Tribal Wars Team
Senior
Team
Reaction score
583
See, one of the interesting parts of Tribal Wars is that it already simulates a lot of these aspects, but in a real-world sense. Tribal Wars doesn't have a formal 'stability' mechanism - yet, in the end, nearly all major tribes eventually break and lose a war due to internal stability problems, and not because they've been rimmed and can't fight back. This game does not need mechanics to fake things that already exist in the interpersonal dynamics of the game.

The idea of mobilizing for war is interesting, and could have benefits. And yet, it would also make the non-war parts of the world uninteresting, as mobilizing would add more time to peace. Mobilization mechanisms would also make surprise wars harder, thus making the average war take longer.

I do think that adding a mechanism to end prolonged, dead wars is just a flat-out good idea, with no downsides. But I also don't think it's worth voting for the rest of these ideas, just for that.

There are good elements here that could potentially be reworked into something more fleshed-out that adds to the game without taking away. However, as it is right now, I think the suggestions here are a little half-baked, and could do with a little more time in the oven.
 
Reaction score
4
The idea of mobilizing for war is interesting, and could have benefits. And yet, it would also make the non-war parts of the world uninteresting, as mobilizing would add more time to peace. Mobilization mechanisms would also make surprise wars harder, thus making the average war take longer.

Well the idea with mobilization is to develop the tribe mechanic. While the level system is decent, mobilization can provide a different dynamic. This will not force the tribes into mobilizing for every war by any means. However, it will make offensive troops fight stronger and allow the tribe to replenish from a previous war as a whole. The place where I see this idea impact the game the most is towards the end game when there are 2-3 major tribes left. Basically it would make nukes more cost effective when bashing against stacked FL vills.
 
Reaction score
4
would the bonuses force a downwards spiral for the losing side - as in once your behind theres no chance of recovery??
would a losing side be able to get an underdog buff at some stage??
how much would a successful op impact both sides of a war??
does it also affect allies that you have invited to a war or is it only your own tribes casualties matter??
what are the affects of low stability??
Thank you for your questions! They definitely gave me something to think about. I will preface my reply with mentioning that I am not a developer and it may take some time to find a good balance to the proposed mechanic/buffs. I believe that the stability mechanic will be more impactful for early to mid game when there are a number of tribes who can tip the scale.

In regards to the first question. I believe that it is important to define losing side. I think that if a tribe did a poor job of fighting off an op then they will not last long either way. However, if they are losing but it is over a prolonged period, say months, then there is no need for them to be penalized more than the other tribe. Both tribes will be receiving debuffs the more troops they lose making them more vulnerable to other tribes. In this case, the losing tribe is already dying, but the "victorious" tribe is becoming more vulnerable to outside threats, thus they may seek a temporary ceasefire.

In regards to the second question, I have not thought about this, but it could be implemented. For instance, perhaps the developers can add a "last stand" option to the tribal level system which buffs the tribe as a whole for a last effort to push back the enemies.

I do not know exactly what you mean by the third question. But if I understand it correctly, then it would depend on what the troop losses. For instance if the offensive tribe is able "successful" in capping a lot of vills, but they loose most of their off, then I would deem this to be a pyrrhic victory. A victory which could be utilized by the tribe that lost its vills or outside tribes. Again the severity of the buffs/debuffs could be decided by the developers.

Since the alliances are non-binding in TW. It would only be fair for the casualties to affect each tribe individually. For instance, in the real world, a nations casualties did not affect the morale of other nations.

The effects of low stability could be a number of things. Ideally it would not be tied to troop quality. For instance, stability would provide buffs/debuffs to production, construction, recruit speed, and recruitment cost. One buff that can be discussed is coin minting. I believe that it would only be fair for this to be affected positively. Meaning, that only high stability can give a slight coin cost reduction, say 5%? Low stability will not increase the coin cost
 
Reaction score
4
I do think that adding a mechanism to end prolonged, dead wars is just a flat-out good idea, with no downsides. But I also don't think it's worth voting for the rest of these ideas, just for that.

I mean if this is the only good idea then I do not have an issue with you or someone else creating a thread just for that. Ultimately, most of the things I wrote were just suggestions. I tend to enjoy a game a lot more when I can see items of realism in the game. So most of what I had to say is primarily based on how I perceive historical diplomacy and war. But that can definitely get ahead of me haha
 
Top