I have mixed views on this. I think that an alliance isn't necessarily a non-agression pact. I can be co-ordinated attacks on a person so that collectively you drain his treasury, or it could be the loan or gift of money to help a nation survive (probably not relevant at this stage because I doubt that money is a factor yet).Ironclad wrote:Making alliances more meaningful in combat.
At present alliances act as simple non-aggression pacts of one year's duration. Allies gain no advantage from one another when attacking or defending against the same enemy.
The latter is able to take on each ally, one at a time, with a full strength army and each conflict operates in total isolation from the other.
To change this I propose that allies be permitted to attack the same enemy province, or to provide assistance to an ally in a province under attack.
If the defending player has an ally or allies, they would have the option of joining in the defence of the province.
This could involve a number of different combinations.
If the defender on his own faced 2 or more enemy allies, he would choose which of them to fight first. The battle would be fought in the normal way (ie up to maximum of 650 points).
If the war continued, the next battle would be fought against the next allied power (if there were several allied powers to fight, the attackers would choose who would fight next in sequence).
The defender would fight the battle with those points left to him after the first battle whereas his new attacker would be able to field up to a full 650 point army.
After that battle, if the war continued, the defender would either fight any further remaining allied attackers, in turn (with his reducing army),
or if all enemy allies had been fought, a second cycle of battles would start; same sequence and each army would fight with those points remaining.
If the defender had an equal number of allies to the enemy. He would choose which of the attackers to fight, and the other powers would fight each other.
If there are enough opponents to generate 3 or more first battles, the attacking coalition would have the choice of who fights whom in the other battles.
Each set of opponents, would continue to fight battles in the normal way (with reducing strength until one gives up).
If the defender gives up first, the province is lost and no more battles are fought there.
If one of the other powers engaged gives up, the winning country would then be able to join in one of the other battle combinations
in support of the ally fighting that battle sequence. The procedure would then follow that outlined above.
If one side starts with more allies than the enemy, the side with the surplus number of allies would be able to choose which battle(s)
his extra ally (ies) would be involved with. So for example if 2 allies engaged 3 enemy allies, one battle would be 2 against 1, and the other 1 against 1.
The war for that province would continue, until either the defender gives up, or all the attacking powers give up.
However, back to the original point of the post, I'm wondering if this will make it too complex to conquer a zone or to plan the activities? I'm not totally opposed to it, but I wonder if the extra complexity it may bring may make the game less playable?
Another option might be for the ally to loan or fund additional troops? In this way the defending army may be able to have more than 650 points - maybe must be the type of troops the ally could send (i.e. you can't add Imitiation Legionaries if the ally doesn't have them), or maybe the choice is free on the basis the ally is sending or funding mercenaries that could be of any type?
I guess for now, I'd leave the system as is, but wouldn't be opposed to change if everyone is up for it.
