Multiplayer mutators

[Humbelum]

Is it still possile to change the alliances while you play like in KaM TSK?

I would like to have to old alliance system back. A mutator to enable this would be very nice.

When I was playing KaM TSK with my friends some years ago we always decided who is ally and who not. Was a lot of fun when everyone changed his alliance.

However the important advantage was that you could enter your enemys town without getting stuck at every villager...

[The Dark Lord]

Meh... That would wreck the whole game.

[Ben]

I agree. In KaM, you really need to work as a team. Most of the maps are created where all your allies are on the same side as you. Being able to declare war on your allies just wouldn't work. It'd be like chopping off your own arm: a loss for no gain. The best outcome would be that you could play a game without someone trolling you...

[Humbelum]

You know that we still talk about mutators for multiplayer. And flexible Ally is just how the original KaM was.

In KaM TSK it was possible to control your army! You were able to ally your enemy to get your troops back in a hopeless battle and ally a someone else for help.

I dont know how the people plays KaM Multiplayer today, is it still "in xx hours we fight" like it was some years ago? We never played like this.

When we played we always made some rules to keep it interessting. Sth like
• We just had a time delay when scouting/attacking was forbidden.
• Free attack after that delay.
• If you beat someone and control his city(your army near the city, towers destroyed, and certain houses e.g Inn destroyed) he had to surrender and became your ally. But you had to protect him or someone else could conquer him.

Or we just diced the allys after the delay. That means that you had to play for yourself before you cooperate with another player.

@Ben
Im not talking about the Team Maps someone created for something like Team1 vs Team2. Its right that a flexible ally wouldnt make sense for this maps. I'm talking about maps with random spawns(if that is still possible). Not checked the multiplayer in remake yet.

[sado1]

Yes, "in xx minutes we fight" is there. It's a standard - on 95% of the games you have some peacetime, usually 60 minutes. The game blocks you in this time from doing anything army-related. Yes, random spawns are available. No, changing alliances while playing isn't a good idea for this game, it would totally ruin it.

BUT

I really like your idea of conquering enemies and changing alliances in mid-game as a new gamemode. That makes me think, this option (forcing the defeated player to join someone's alliance) as a mutator isn't that bad - but we would also need a mutator that lets people rebuild their cities after being defeated. These 2 mutators combined would mean that every conquered player surrenders to the oppressor leading to a situation where finally 2 players are fighting against each other, with their puppet teams.

(Of course, I already see incoming problems.. players agreeing to be "destroyed" by someone at a certain point, just to form an alliance, etc.)

[Florek]

In KaM TSK it was possible to control your army! You were able to ally your enemy to get your troops back in a hopeless battle and ally a someone else for help.

Wow, one of the stupidest solution I ever read!

[Krom]

@Florek: That is a harsh reply, maybe you want to express yourself in a more polite way.

[Humbelum]

In KaM TSK it was possible to control your army! You were able to ally your enemy to get your troops back in a hopeless battle and ally a someone else for help.

Wow, one of the stupidest solution I ever read!

seems like you NEVER played the original KaM or never heard of a tactical fallback. It's just realistic.

However, if 95% of the people just play with faked battles in multiplayer you dont need to care about a fallback. I dont like this solution. Did you ever got a message from your enemy in SP with a warning that he wants to attack you in xx minutes? lol!

[sado1]

Well, switching alliance just to get back from a failed battle is just a lame cheat, you can't call it other way than "stupid". Tactical fallback in real life isn't looking like "oh, they lost, not they are our allies so we won't pursue them". It looks like "oh, they are defeated, let's rape them until their whole blood wets the ground beneath them!". So no, it isn't normal to just switch alliance in mid-fight. That's a cheat.

But as a mutator, under some conditions, it makes more sense.

[dicsoupcan]

alliances work only if you have no pt, random locs (not team designed locs like most maps) and both the one who wants to ally someone aswell the one who got the proposal have to accept the alliance. even though the idea is nice, i do think it is hard to execute this well.

[Humbelum]

Well, switching alliance just to get back from a failed battle is just a lame cheat, you can't call it other way than "stupid". Tactical fallback in real life isn't looking like "oh, they lost, not they are our allies so we won't pursue them". It looks like "oh, they are defeated, let's rape them until their whole blood wets the ground beneath them!". So no, it isn't normal to just switch alliance in mid-fight. That's a cheat.

But as a mutator, under some conditions, it makes more sense.

Thats right, if you ally your enemy and walk back you can get slaughtert easily. Arrows hit in your back, mounted units can pursue you etc.

We used this for something like that: Player A attacks Player B. While fighting, Player C attacks A's town. His town defense seems to break so he decides to cancel his attack at B. He sets ally to B and his units stop fighting, so he can move back try to save his town. B is still able to kill the Units of A so he can pursue him of course.

Thats how we used the ally-system back in 2003. (and of course to stop attacking the villagers )
Sometimes it seems like me and my friends played another game

[Bence791]

Did you ever got a message from your enemy in SP with a warning that he wants to attack you in xx minutes? lol!

The worst example you could say... Really... In campaigns (I mean TSK and TPR), you always get a message that the enemy is attacking in any minute. Or at least before the first (mainly initial) battle. Just a reminder

On topic:
Your idea would end up in a huge packet of betrayals on the battlefield. Hope it won't even be implemented as a mutator. It'd be something like: "Oh my god, I'll gonna lose, I must ally my enemy so I can attack him later again, when I have enough troops!" It's "disgusting" imo. (Of course there are people who wouldn't be those rats to do things like this, but honestly...)

[Humbelum]

The worst example you could say... Really... In campaigns (I mean TSK and TPR), you always get a message that the enemy is attacking in any minute. Or at least before the first (mainly initial) battle. Just a reminder

Haha I knew that something like this would come but: These messages you got were from your scout
Its not the enemy who warns you

On topic:
Your idea would end up in a huge packet of betrayals on the battlefield. Hope it won't even be implemented as a mutator. It'd be something like: "Oh my god, I'll gonna lose, I must ally my enemy so I can attack him later again, when I have enough troops!" It's "disgusting" imo. (Of course there are people who wouldn't be those rats to do things like this, but honestly...)

Just to explain it more clearly:
Player A allys Player B
Units of A will stop fighting with B
Units of B will continue fighting with A
Player B have to set the ally too if he want that his units stop attacking A.
Thats how it worked in TSK. Maybe "Ally" is the wrong term to call it. "Ignore Player B" would be more what it means... Because a alliance should be a contract between two sides.

But I understand your point. Maybe its the "problem" that I always played with fair peoples... I know there are a lot of trolls out there.

To be able to ignore someone(during the game) would be enough for me to play with my friends like a few years ago.

[Kridge]

I really like your idea of conquering enemies and changing alliances in mid-game as a new gamemode. That makes me think, this option (forcing the defeated player to join someone's alliance) as a mutator isn't that bad - but we would also need a mutator that lets people rebuild their cities after being defeated. These 2 mutators combined would mean that every conquered player surrenders to the oppressor leading to a situation where finally 2 players are fighting against each other, with their puppet teams.

(Of course, I already see incoming problems.. players agreeing to be "destroyed" by someone at a certain point, just to form an alliance, etc.)

I agree, but I wouldn't know if this would work for Multiplayer. For SinglePlayer missions: Yes.

[Ben]

I love the idea of vessels (an enemy conquered is now your slave) in multiplayer, but I don't think that it would even work. When would the game end? When a player has managed to conquer everyone? How long would that take? He may even have to conquer everyone several times. It could take, literally, an entire day of playtime.

Being able to retreat is realistic, but it doesn't work for KaM! It doesn't match the game's tactical play style. This has been discussed so many times before.