Hi all,

I was facing a late disclosure. Never thought this was possible;). But that leads me to a rule currently exsisting, which is not necessary, I think. Leaving out this rule would extend the strategy possibilities and wouldn't increase the complexity of the game.

The rule I am talking about is this anoying can't attack a undisclosed ally. I shortly talked with artmax about that. He told me that he don't know of any inhouse discussion about that and that we should talk about it here. If many agree to my position maybe this rule is added.

Ok lets think what will change if we introduce the rule: Player can attack undisclosed friendly ally.

First impact is made on the logic level. Artmax mentioned there won't be any guerilla resistance then. So its obvious to the enemy that this is your ally. - Well I think there should be guerilla. In my logic guerilla is a stand up of crazy people who fight for freedom and independence. So this isn't a govermental thing. Guerilla armies are strictly non-govermental and non-regular armies. If a land is attacked they race and fight against the intruder. So in this game they stand up and join the 'enemy' force to fight against the player.

Thats the only impact on the logic elements of the game I think.

But what are the possibilities? First of all. If your friendly undisclosed ally is surrounded by your troops fully outnumbering the guerilla then you invade it and everything looks like a neutral country for the enemy. So you control this city but didn't diclosed all of your allies. - By the current ruleset you have to disclose it or leave it unconquered. Both makes it obvious for the enemy that this is your secret ally. But by saving your disclosion you can save these secret army points by wasting the guerilla points. This will give you an extra plus if the enemy comes invading your territory while your cities don't generate addition income (ran out of turns)

Another scenario the current ruleset is an unecessary restriction (in my oppinion of cause) is the following:
Imagen an enemy and a disclosed or concered city. Seperated by a non-disclosed ally. Normaly you would disclose it and move your troops in. and try to stop the enemy on the borders of the newly disclosed area. But it's a limitiation I think. Imagen us attacking the undisclosed one. The guerilla is raised and enemy takes over control (like if this would be a strictly friendly country). Now we play along. The guerilla joins arms with the regular troops of the enemy. We just invade the country but we try to look like having difficulties in advancing. So we still stand near the border of our allies. The enemy then doing the usall stuff. Advancing, securing etc. But just before he gain total control of the city, we disclose our country, get the secret army and attack him from the back or even worst, take out his guerilla and take over his other country to cut out supply routes.


So what do you think? Should they change the rule about attacking undisclosed allies?

i got confused after reading the second par. so let me get this striaght if you invade a friendly you want the enimy to get guerilla?

my isp stil aint owrkign and now when i try to open the game my pc restarts =[

err im very confused ont his matter also you attack your own city.. and they get gurila..... what lol so u have to spend at least one extra turn before you even get a revinue..

wouldnt it be better to just be able to walk thru your own city?
or on another note i was thinking like you could buy out another city (including the enimys)
that would realy mix it up lol

buying a nuetrual city over would be a cool feature

Well I ment that before disclosing a secret ally It will act like a neutral one. Thats all. So you dont have to disclose to conquer it.

The idea is interesting
On the up side: more "sneak" playing and masking your secret allies.(can be very helpfull)
On the downside: lots of confusion by newbees

One more idea: you can invade one your secret ally each turn and you MUST disclose it at the end of turn.

Well the confusion of the noobs depends on how you explain the city theme at all - and how the guerilla is linked to that description.

Your second idea is a bit weird;) Its just that instant disclosure. But hey that would be a good link that helps to explain the attack your ally function.

Just think about that little invade neutral country dialog if you try to move your units on neutral territories. I think it can be easily extended to: You are about to invade a neutral country. This country is your secret ally. If you don't disclose this movement will lead to a guerilla stand up. What you wanna do? Invade, Disclose, Cancel

And if you are selecting disclose, the city will automaticly be disclosed in the disclosure phase of this turn.


I think that is the best implementation of the 'new' rules. Would allow a very scary gameplay .

And remember a noob won't win against an experienced player anyway.

yeah you can't win this game buy luck.

Well - sure you can. I am playing artmax these days and he can be so lucky coz I thought the attackrange of an bomber is 5 so I placed the units that way I ve done. And what happend next? Well lost a couple of units cause they were finished by bombers... .

Damn luck. What a waste of money!

i think that was a fault on your part.


and artmax is not an easy opponent by any strch of the imagination.

I guess it was that "rules confusion"

BTW: if you read this thread - send me a challenge

Surly it was my fault *g. But that's the luck the game is all about. Confusion of the player. But I am still a bad player... I can't simply optain a noob player... well and dont talk about developer...

you cant win this game by luck?
lol ok my large was surounded by this guys 8-8-12-8
my 12 was surounded
i lost both of them
i had one iland he had 2 if that aint wining by luck what is??

your post makes very little sense to me.

I noticed it's getting harder and harder for me to win...
And frankly speaking, I'm not a good player...

I hope I can win a game against you sometimes. But I need more training. You are kicking my ass in our current two games... .

i realyl suck i don't know why i'm so used to rts's .

I havn't seen a computer turn based game before.

They are very easy to play - you have no time to control units- that means as long as you order them to do smth you loose little - there are lots of things that need attention at once e.t.c. We've made an experiment: StarCraft, 1 excelent player vs 2 moderate players, but moderate players have only 1 base (they controlled it simultaneously). After ~ a month of training that excelent player was loosing 9 of 10.


Really? What about Age of Wonders, Moo, Civ? (take any appropriate version) Not speaking about Master of Magic...

i;ve only been avidly playing games for a year or two i'm still a bit young even though i dove in headfirst and am swiming really fast .