It's clear that plenty of people enjoy diplomacy games on warlight. Despite the fact that the only thing separating them is a set or rules the owner writes, and hopes every player agrees on. To often do these games end in FFA's because players see no reason to play by the rules of alliances. This could be partially solved if a "Diplomacy" style game could be selected when creating a game. In said diplomacy game each player is assigned his own personal team, exactly like a team in a 2v2,3v3,etc. However there will be and added function, for declaring wars/alliances. 1st, and most complex, if a player uses the alliance function, it will send a request to the other player, asking if they would like to form an alliance, and if it's yes, the 2 players will be put in the same team and will enjoy all the benefits of being a team in a team game. the game will also announce their alliance. If a a player uses the "Declare war" function, the game will announce the deceleration. If 2 teams have not used these functions with each other, but 1 team attacks another, the game will declare the attacking team a "Public Enemy" for breaking the rules of the game, and will automatically declare all teams at war with this team. With this system players will be responsible for their teams actions, but will also enjoy more rewards from alliances.

Why not simply prevent players breaking the rules in the first place and do away with the public enemy bit?

@{rp}Discord thats probably better, but i was trying to make it similar to the way we currently run Diplo's

wont work because if 1 team member gets booted the entire game becomes crap again

Public Enemy only exists in the current setup, because rule breaking is so common.

I like the idea of being able to join teams and separate from teams mid game. This would solve a lot of transferring troops issues we have in diplomacy games. Also the ability to see your teams moves would be great.

I cant stand games where you must declare war before doing battle. This should be up to the players involved. Yes the right thing to do is declare war but not always.

i hope that what you are basicly asking for is for an official diplomacy setting, which hopefully might be changed during game accordign to soem rules (otherwise ti wouldnt eb diplomacy, just team agmes). If that is what you are asking for, it makes sense

Another idea would be "Objectives"... Like having to take a certain territory or set of territories to win the game, or just the full elimination...

There can be no "officially" diplomacy setting. The way I make a Diplo may be completely different than the way discord does. The rulesbare different the war declaration rules are different and distribution styles are different. If said option was put in place there would be too many diplos anyway. As it is there are about three at any given time. I personally am one of the few people left who create equal and quality diplos anyway. Most of em are just a 24 FFA with a huge advantage for one guy.

vote https://warlight.uservoice.com/forums/77051-warlight-features/suggestions/1088481-peace-treaties

The suggestion is different to that one. With this idea, teams will be dynamically created and broken throughout the game: So you get the added benefits that teams normally do (troop transfers, shared card pieces, seeing through the fog), and not just enforced peace. Would joint-victories also be possible? Half the points for each player. Seems fair.

Personally, i´m happy and able to just use arbitary rules to enforce players to act like this, however if this could become a real addition I think for others it would be hugely beneficial and a real improvement to Warlight. Less and less a risk clone, more and more a complex world strategy game.


In conclusion: Dynamic Team-creation/dissolution features make me tingle.

@Disocrd am tingling too if you know what i mean.;)