/support



fill-text for making a longer message

At the end of the day, it's about the strongest empire reigning over the others so it doesn't essentially break the backstory though it highly dilutes it. Each race has their mission and you could have some strange alliances in the end. At least when I started RTS games with friends eg. Star Craft, we would only play co-op against the AI since my friends never liked PvP...I'm sure there's lots of ES players with the same sentiment and if you're playing with AI, perhaps you can just define the Alliances from the beginning.

I'd like to see a shared diplomatic victory. It doesn't feel very diplomatic to snipe the win condition from my partners with a few last moment bilateral agreements. I've become a big fan of cobbling together a galactic republic of empires at endgame but my friends are starting to lose interest in working together for the reason we can't win together. It doesn't really profit them anything at the extreme endgame in a galaxy of mega alliances. It also creates a situation where a player can't defect from the alliance to delay the victory condition for very long, because they usually face the prospect of an overwhelming galactic military response.



It is actually a bit unfortunate because I've become a bigger fan of diplomatic victories over conquest and expansion. Conquest just becomes a steamroll and expansion is too easy to set up in the early mid game. The scientific victory is also pretty easy to obtain by late-mid game I find with only a little bit of calculated over-expansion early on.

Aezrin wrote:
I'd like to see a shared diplomatic victory. It doesn't feel very diplomatic to snipe the win condition from my partners with a few last moment bilateral agreements. I've become a big fan of cobbling together a galactic republic of empires at endgame but my friends are starting to lose interest in working together for the reason we can't win together. It doesn't really profit them anything at the extreme endgame in a galaxy of mega alliances. It also creates a situation where a player can't defect from the alliance to delay the victory condition for very long, because they usually face the prospect of an overwhelming galactic military response.



It is actually a bit unfortunate because I've become a bigger fan of diplomatic victories over conquest and expansion. Conquest just becomes a steamroll and expansion is too easy to set up in the early mid game. The scientific victory is also pretty easy to obtain by late-mid game I find with only a little bit of calculated over-expansion early on.

Seems nice to me!

In my opinion there should be options for things like 2v2, 3v3 and so on.

I've been waiting for this opportunity so long.

InFlamesWeTrust wrote:
In my opinion there should be options for things like 2v2, 3v3 and so on.

Interesting idea!

I'd like any victory type shared in an ongoing alliance. If its expansion victory then it should be something like: "You and your allies hold 75% of the galaxy".

If its the capital thing: "You and your ally hold every capital System in the galaxy."

If its economy or sience, ... : "Your ally has won the sience victory with your help." or "You have won the science victory with the help of your allies."



And furthermore in my opinion you should have the power to decide if you want this or not.

Let's say you have an alliance in mid game because you nearly die, and 1 offers you alliance, but you want the Universe for yourself. So you take the alliance and later in the game, you want to break it.

Now if you win before you can break the alliance that would suck.

So when the screen shows up: "You and your ally hold 75% of the galaxy" there need to be 2 buttons: Button 1: Accept the victory, Button 2: Turn on your ally.

If you do the 2nd you get a hard diplomatic penalty. In other words: Every remaining player declares infinite war against you. Because you are not to be trusted for you attacked your own ally.



Anyways the diplomatic system has some downsides as well. "7 more turns until you can declare war." WHAT??? Ask an Adolf Hitler, de didn't have to wait 7 more years, he attacked whenever he wanted. Any Dictator or ruler can attack anyone at any time. Who hinders me to declare war on them? Universal Police? That makes no sense! I would do this like in Civilization and Total War Shogun.

Take the diplomatic handicap (everyone dislikes you very much if you break a treaty [Soitstillis7moreturnsuntilyoucandeclarewar-withoutpenalty] everyone starts to hate you.

And mix that with Total War Shogun where, when you get too powerfull, everyone attacks you. And I mean everyone. Allies, Foes, neighbours, pirates, ... the remaining 10 to 20 nations.

So if you attack an ally or break a cease fire treaty everyone will turn on endless war with you.

If you break a treaty like: give 10 dust per turn, everyone is just dissapointed and maximum goes down 1 step: Allies go to peace, Peace guys go to cold war, Cold war guys go to war, War guys go to endless war.

I saw some movement and hoped that this would be added. That's really the only condition under which I'd play MP right now.

I would prefer it if you had to subjugate a frenemy before this could occur.

i never see a 4X game that you can have more than 1 winner, the game goal always have only the chosen one except if you lock two players in same team together, example - in civilization 5, you can put AI or Player into same team before game start but that will lock you into forever alliance which share technology together and LOS which kinda cheating........also if one of you hate some of AI or Player and decide to war with him then it will pull you into that war too, same with alliance system but you get no option to refuse the war.



so yes even we can have only 1 winner, i don't care that, i play with 3 friends in Civ5 and our main goal is to have fun together, beat the highest score or most advance AI down.

All victory types should be shared between allies.

Autocthon wrote:
All victory types should be shared between allies.

Agreed. I only play this game multiplayer with my best friend and it is frustrating to have to gift or be gifted planets or some such just to end the game peacefully.

Well done Amplitude; with your neat looking graphics, compelling lore and promise of replayability you've convinced me and two of my friends to buy your game.



-Well let's just get this set up to play some multiplayer.

-Menu looks cool, inviting system is intuitive.

-Friends invited. Time to pick my faction. Cool, Sheredyn. Badass.

-Now to just set the alliances for 3v3v3 against some AI...

-The dropdown menu must be here somewhere...

-...

-Maybe a button or checkbox?

-Nothing? Wow ♥♥♥♥ this

Igncom1 wrote:
I would prefer it if you had to subjugate a frenemy before this could occur.

That said, this is something I'd really like to see added. It's actually kind of surprising to me that you can't start the game with teams, locked or unlocked.

I agree heavily with the OP. I hate being a sneak and backstabbing my former friends who helped me achieve what I now have, stood by my side and died with me. I hate such low-lives in movies and real-life. One can only hope the devs will implement this in later patches.

I haven't agreed yet on this page with the OPm but HELL YES! I'd play MP if that was the case.

You people are far to honourable.

Igncom1 wrote:
You people are far to honourable.

XD



But this is an interesting concept.

you can always go for a diplomatic win, but it's boring if you are playing with friends and you still get only 1 of you to win. Allied victory would be nice, always having in mind some limits (something like a diplomatic score, long lasting alliances, technologies discovered...)