Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Otherwise, you understand how the rule of adjacency works, right? The battle takes place on the targeted hex, and all surrounding stacks can be involved. So you want to be standing next to the target, not your ally necessarily.
You understand how the rule of adjacency works right? When the person says they are standing next to their ally when their ally is attacked.... it means they DO want to be standing next to their ally, since "being attacked" means they ARE the target.
But that's ok, you can condescendingly explain the rule, while illustrating that you didn't read the comment. I gave no indication I didn't understand the rule. It's the same rule since shadowmagic at least. My post included the fact that I understood the rule.
This game appears to be designed to eliminate undeclared war, since the implications of being dragged into a battle you didn't declare war beforehand with no say in the matter cannot be understated. In the interests of gameplay flow, there is no reason why the uninvolved player should have a prompt. Either declare war beforehand and then show the mutual support, or don't bother.
I think what Midas was getting at here is that you want to be sure that the attacking army was not targeting a structure. I learned the hard way that when you have 2 armies defending a city but 1 of those armies is adjacent to a cosmite node, then an attacking army can attack the node and only the adjacent army will be defending it.
There is no reason to take anything personally. Many people read the forum, not just you, and some might have the same question you have. Some might not know how basic mechanics work yet, in which case reminding the reader on details like these is useful. also you didn't "indicate" anything, so your reaction is even more puzzling
And i don't see a problem here, really. Consider 3 parties, A, B and C. A and B are in war with each other, C is in defensive pact/ally with both A and B. Lets just say the same situation as described earlier, B attacks A, an army of C is close enough so it can join. If C joins the battle, who would be their opponent? they can't attack neither A nor B since they dont have war with either. They can't declare war on the same turn, since it always takes 2 turns to go from pact/non-aggression to war state. Even if they were neutral, you have a situation where C can be dragged into war without active consent or have to respond to the situation that doesnt involve them directly not on their turn -> you have +1 blocking wait state in a multiplayer game. The problem here is thet the mere fact of your ally being in a war doesn't translate into you having similar diplomatic state.
My answer would be no. Here are some points:
- You can't defeat someone in 1 turn reallistically speaking. Even in overwhelming odds, armies still require time to move and you have to get 2 targets(Commander and HQ) to kill anyone. Something like this might be possible in the early game, but your opponent has to be somewhat reckless, nvm garrisons that protect cities are relatively strong early(and HQ has additional garrison strength anyway)
- Surprise attacks are part of strategy since ancient times, so of course they are effective. No need to dilute their impact, since
- There is no such thing as a surprise attack. If opponent can outmaneuver you and get their armies into advantageous position they have all rights to exploit said position. Gathering Intelligence on potential foes is something that has to be commonsense. In planetfall you can even see stacks in fog of war, something which no other 4x game does.
- From the B's point of view. he can now accept A's call to war and attack C's armies that likely got out of position in a reckless attack. AI falls into this trap all the time - it doesn't consider allied armies as threats and gets too greedy in initial attack.
He's salty because he can't win an argument, so now he assumes everything I say is hostile lmao
I disagree 100%. If I am allied with two factions and I have troops in the city of one faction, realistically there is zero reason I can not defend the city. I am not put to a choice between my allies until this point. There is no way for someone to "conquer" a city around my troops. A prompt is warrented. I shouldn't have to "predeclare" war... just in case they decide to attack. When two loyalties are at odds I should get the choice.
You do get drawn in when you are at "peace" with the faction, but not "Friendship".
Are you describing a situation between two AI factions as you imagine it to be, or as it works in the game as of now?
There's a big difference between sieging a colony and unintentional field battles from what I can see.
Also, your original example talks about NPC factions, which don't have the same diplomatic system to AI competitors. Being friends with the NPC faction to me is the equivalent of signing a non-aggression pact with an AI faction, and from memory I'm very sure I'm not allowed to participate in a battle against an AI faction I have a pact with if my AI ally attacks the NAP signatory. The allied AI at this point will be using the call to war function to get me to join or lose the alliance.
No, as the original post stated, this was a case of TEAMS (fixed alliances) with another human player. They were at war with the NPC faction and I was friends. But WE each had a stack defending my teammates's city against the opposing team (we tend to each have troops in each other cities to better utilize Tac ops and not get bored in tac combat).
So when the NPC faction declared war and blitzed the city, I was not drawn in on the defense of the city. In my view that's a flaw in the game, especially on team games. That team is the premier alliance, and this way it actually penalizes joint defenses which are preferrable for the reasons mentioned above.
Your ally is at war with the NPC faction and you're not. Ally's colony is attacked by the NPC faction, you don't join in battle unless you also declare war. If you're going to betray your friendship with the NPC, be official about it. If the aggressor was an AI competitor that you were not at war with, you'd be getting the call to arms decision if the alliance was formed after the state of war is declared to get you to form up or drop out of the alliance.
If you don't like how the current diplomatic situation between playable and NPC factions plays out now, might be a better idea to petition for a change on the official forums. NPC factions here don't work the same way the previous game handled the neutral factions, presumably to avoid backstabbing the faction in battle while ostensibly remaining friendly and retaining the option to purchase units from the dwellings.