i would be happy even they add the possibility to help the ally in battle or pass him units

Hence my initial apprehension at including supremacy. But at least with supremacy you'd had to have had something majorly detrimental happen to you (losing your capital). That's a good point though, there are problems with all kinds of alliance victory. Elimination seems like the best route.

Isn't that true for Supremacy as well? If A has their capital, B has their capital, and C lost their capital to B with a resulting 40/40/20 split...A and B going into an Alliance would be a Supremacy Victory.

A late game three way fight could see most of the map occupied by two players, and cultists pillaging extractors/towers regularly. Even if it had nothing to do with cultists, on a map split 40/40/20 by three players of any faction, the two players could just decide to win at will by entering into an alliance. That would be incredibly un-fun. I suppose it wouldn't be a terrible option for a MP game in which alliances were predetermined before the match, but outside of that instance I would not be in favor of alliance-expansion victory. That said, an added option for it wouldn't hurt anyone.

If they're doing that poorly, then couldn't the Cultist player be razing the cities shortly after being founded and continuously be getting Industry/Science Stockpiles? Or, conversely, if the alliance is managing to do that well in spite of playing poorly, couldn't they capture the Cultist capital reasonably easily (more easily than founding a bunch of cities)? If this game had Defender's Advantage then founding a city would be a firmer claim and more difficult to take out, but as is...



I always thought the "Expansion Victory" was basically saying "Okay, you control 80%+ of the map, let's not drag this out." Under that logic, the Cultist player allowing those two players to control 80%+ of the map is effectively the same situation, right?

Mechanically it could work, but I don't see it being a particularly fun game mechanic to allow for expansion victories via alliance. Think of the cultist empire, for example. They could be effortlessly wrecked by a an alliance of two other players, even if the other players were doing poorly.

Don't forget Expansion Victory either (Alliance controls 80% of the map or whatever).

Yeah, alliance victory could only really be considered when dealing with elimination (or I guess supremacy) victories. It could also be really, hilariously fun to require alliance victories to be ratified with a final treaty (in a future endless title, not EL). As in, all allied players must agree to an alliance victory. So much potential for betrayal in the eleventh hour!

Maybe just saying something like :

IF (any member of the alliance group has achieved any of the victory types except for Supremacy or Elimination)

OR (Supremacy or Elimination conditions are met, except for the members of the alliance group)

THEN (the alliance group has won)



The next step would be :

IF (the alliance group has together achieved any of the victory types except for Supremacy or Elimination) -- thus counting up the statistics for all members

OR (Supremacy or Elimination conditions are met, except for the members of the alliance group)

THEN (the alliance group has won)



But what's really difficult is taking additional scenarios into consideration : combat, closed borders, espionage, etc.

lilyophelia wrote:
I think a lot of times people have really great and neat ideas, but they don't always understand the complexity of what they're asking for. It sounds really simple and easy, but it's actually a huge project.

Well, simply giving everyone in an Alliance victory credit would in fact be simple and easy -- the game is already set up to allow multiple people winning. Problem comes in when you consider ramifications like the Force Alliance ability of Drakken or the fact Necrophages can't be in an Alliance.

I think a lot of times people have really great and neat ideas, but they don't always understand the complexity of what they're asking for. It sounds really simple and easy, but it's actually a huge project.

While I don't disagree that having an ally as reinforcement in battle function is beyond the scope of the game at this point, I think adding an alliance victory condition or any increase in alliance functionality at all is something that should be looked into as content for EL is wrapped up, even if it is a bit difficult, and should certainly be taken into consideration when making ES2 or a theoretical EL2, especially allied unit/ship backups in combat. That said, I think it should be something that is definitely categorized as an optional rule adjustment, I would not like to see it worked into vanilla ruleset as something that would be popping up in every game.

why they don't add that feature for more immersive coop? there is any mod that do that? i really want that,for me is a key feature for that kond of game,mae ally and win togheter...

Off topic:(?)



And what about my pink unicorn ? It would be more easy to implement I guess !? Not ? If not possible, I could be even pleased with a rainbow coloured pony...

Alberto2791 wrote:
is not like a real ally...a real ally can provide lot of thing,combined army,army of the ally in the same zone that can help u in battle...

That's WELL beyond the scope of what we could reasonably expect at this point

Frogsquadron wrote:
That is not happening in Endless Legend, unfortunately. It is an exceedingly complex feature to implement, and well beyond the scope of the game at this point.

What exactly would be difficult about making it so that the winning player also gives winning credit to anyone he's allied with, for example? The game is already set up to allow ties, in the case of one person getting Economic Victory the same turn someone else gets Scientific Victory...or two people getting Scientific Victory, or two people getting Economic Victory.



The main issue would seem to be Supremacy/Elimination stuff, so maybe just a check of "Look at player A. Does player A and everyone directly allied with player A control sufficient capitals/territory/etc for Elimination/Supremacy/etc?" And loop through the players? This is already done each turn for each player, it would just be expanding it to allied players of that player.



This would obviously leave the Necrophages out in the cold, but maybe that's just the "price" of playing Necrophages? I'm just trying to come up with something that doesn't involve a rework of the new game screen or a reworking of the in-game UI.



Edit: I should also mention that I meant this in regards to human players. Otherwise you'd get something like a Drakken using Force Alliance on everyone = his "Grand Alliance" has all capitals = everyone wins instantly in single player. I suppose someone might troll by doing it in multiplayer but that means they don't personally win -- so maybe some kind of limit on the "Grand Alliance?" Like only 50% of players max can win or something?



That's still hardly foolproof as a runaway player who controls 6 capitals or something could then get Force Allianced by the Drakken (who controls their own capital) and the last "original" capital also gets Force Allianced, which is 3 people out of 8 (or change it to runaway controls 4 with six players total) and would in theory trigger it. I'm not sure. One possible solution is that Forced Alliances don't count? Not sure, haven't thought about this enough. But it would definitely be nice for an Alliance to actually mean something for victory besides Diplomatic Victory points and it's already built into the game, so trying to figure ideas out.

but it would add a lot more complex on the game and fun..is sad that this is not appening

That is not happening in Endless Legend, unfortunately. It is an exceedingly complex feature to implement, and well beyond the scope of the game at this point.

I think this is a bit more complex than most of us would like to believe.

Most games of this genre are designed to end with a single player as the winner.

I wouldn't hold my breath that this will change.

is not like a real ally...a real ally can provide lot of thing,combined army,army of the ally in the same zone that can help u in battle...

Well, you *could* play multiplayer and Ally with your friend. As long as one of you wins it's like you both won, since you're allies!