Giving land to allies on scenarios

Is this a fair tactic or does it go against the purpose of the game?

Discuss.

Tactic.

Yes because if you can do it without hacking then it's ok

Same principle with wall fucking. You shouldn't do it sometimes but it's fine if you are ok with being banned by everyone (believe me I know)

It breaks the balance on aetius and pyrhus scenarios, which is why it was always bannable if someone did it on all their maps back when they were active and played.
dont really see it done in scenarios sincce it break balance on most , i recently been just seeing it on ww1 which is why so many caps have been geting unmovable caps every x amount of time since it seems to be considered normal by some xD.

With ww1 as a example , ally capping entente is not such a issue compared with ally capping cp ,the reason for this is because cp has inflation as the game going on and if u take a countries lands u get their income/reins but u dont get the inflation

It's generally a bit cheese. As it's not counterable, and goes against the spirit of what the mapmaker intended, it can break the balance and frontlines of the game. This is why most people frown upon it.

Seems fair to me.

Not fair at all, because it can basically give someone a second chance in a game and potentially even screw over another player depending on how much/valuable the land given was. It really boils down to context of situation but generally is extremely disadvantageous in most situation for people who oppose the person receiving the land and it can really change the flow of the game given context like I said

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 24.07.2020 at 17:45

Is this a fair tactic or does it go against the purpose of the game?

Discuss.

Does it also go against the spirit of the game if for example, Ill make only militia and give another player 99% of my money?
If thats the case then disable funding allies too

Kirjoittanut ITSGG1122, 27.07.2020 at 07:45

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 24.07.2020 at 17:45

Is this a fair tactic or does it go against the purpose of the game?

Discuss.

Does it also go against the spirit of the game if for example, Ill make only militia and give another player 99% of my money?
If thats the case then disable funding allies too

That is actually a fairly good idea, there should be a maximum amount of funds that an ally can send to another in a map like ideally 10k, ofcourse this being a choice by the mapmaker as in if it will be implemented and how much the cap should be, another idea is disabling funding untill a certain turn is reached (like t9,t13 etc) this being a choice by the mapmaker.

Kirjoittanut Brsjak, 27.07.2020 at 07:55

Kirjoittanut ITSGG1122, 27.07.2020 at 07:45

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 24.07.2020 at 17:45

Is this a fair tactic or does it go against the purpose of the game?

Discuss.

Does it also go against the spirit of the game if for example, Ill make only militia and give another player 99% of my money?
If thats the case then disable funding allies too

That is actually a fairly good idea, there should be a maximum amount of funds that an ally can send to another in a map like ideally 10k, ofcourse this being a choice by the mapmaker as in if it will be implemented and how much the cap should be, another idea is disabling funding untill a certain turn is reached (like t9,t13 etc) this being a choice by the mapmaker.

You know this is quite impossible with ww1 rip prussia

Kirjoittanut ITSGG1122, 27.07.2020 at 08:00

Kirjoittanut Brsjak, 27.07.2020 at 07:55

Kirjoittanut ITSGG1122, 27.07.2020 at 07:45

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 24.07.2020 at 17:45

Is this a fair tactic or does it go against the purpose of the game?

Discuss.

Does it also go against the spirit of the game if for example, Ill make only militia and give another player 99% of my money?
If thats the case then disable funding allies too

That is actually a fairly good idea, there should be a maximum amount of funds that an ally can send to another in a map like ideally 10k, ofcourse this being a choice by the mapmaker as in if it will be implemented and how much the cap should be, another idea is disabling funding untill a certain turn is reached (like t9,t13 etc) this being a choice by the mapmaker.

You know this is quite impossible with ww1 rip prussia

yes that is why it should be optional and up to the mapmakers choice.

It's a good tactic in most situations. Keeping an ally in the game makes it harder for your opponent. But it's also fun when you are just learning to stay alive and learn the tactics of better players. As a new player, i remember allies giving me small nations in their realm to stay alive, just so i could continue watching the battles results and learn dynamics. You don't have time to watch those details when in the heat of battle.

i agree with Black Vortex (EJR) though that it can destroy the balance of a game. So in scenarios and specific maps where it would ruin the balance, it should not be used. That said, some onus should be on Map Makers to create maps resistant to this. Generally, the loss of income by transferring provinces should be a sufficient disadvantage to transferring territory, and if it's not, perhaps the Map Maker can use events or other methods to maintain balance should a player give away territory.

Kirjoittanut brianwl, 27.07.2020 at 15:31

It's a good tactic in most situations. Keeping an ally in the game makes it harder for your opponent. But it's also fun when you are just learning to stay alive and learn the tactics of better players. As a new player, i remember allies giving me small nations in their realm to stay alive, just so i could continue watching the battles results and learn dynamics. You don't have time to watch those details when in the heat of battle.

i agree with Black Vortex (EJR) though that it can destroy the balance of a game. So in scenarios and specific maps where it would ruin the balance, it should not be used. That said, some onus should be on Map Makers to create maps resistant to this. Generally, the loss of income by transferring provinces should be a sufficient disadvantage to transferring territory, and if it's not, perhaps the Map Maker can use events or other methods to maintain balance should a player give away territory.

yea, that's what Aetius has done with Berlin and Birmingham in ww1 using immovable sea unit, but a lot of people apply this strategy with Munich and Ireland/Scotland/Wales, which for that reason should be available for transfer

Kirjoittanut Lion Sin Escanor, 24.07.2020 at 21:55

With ww1 as a example , ally capping entente is not such a issue compared with ally capping cp ,the reason for this is because cp has inflation as the game going on and if u take a countries lands u get their income/reins but u dont get the inflation

That's a fair point, but I just played a WW1 where gigi/UK allycapped France against my WG, and shortly after Alex (otto) said this is abuse and left. Puchao (AH) and anti (Prussia) followed.

It seems like there's no consensus whether it should be allowed or not, but meanwhile, this is still ruining games. I don't mind if this is a rule of the map (in that case gigi would be banned for breaking the rules)...

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 16.08.2020 at 15:21

Kirjoittanut Lion Sin Escanor, 24.07.2020 at 21:55

With ww1 as a example , ally capping entente is not such a issue compared with ally capping cp ,the reason for this is because cp has inflation as the game going on and if u take a countries lands u get their income/reins but u dont get the inflation

That's a fair point, but I just played a WW1 where gigi/UK allycapped France against my WG, and shortly after Alex (otto) said this is abuse and left. Puchao (AH) and anti (Prussia) followed.

It seems like there's no consensus whether it should be allowed or not, but meanwhile, this is still ruining games. I don't mind if this is a rule of the map (in that case gigi would be banned for breaking the rules)...

There has been a surge of trying to enforce new rules on ww1 to try and balance it such as no enente ally capping , no blitz uk etc. The idea against ally caping is france going full to alpa is sooo hard to counter most of the time

Honestly, there should be an option to not only hand over your cities, but even units to an ally. Doesn't have to be ALL scenarios, but in ones like Japanese Shogunate, Ancient World, and New World Empires, it would make sense. I think its something that should be up to the mapmaker, but implementing such an optional feature wouldn't hurt.