Istalris wrote:

Spankie wrote:as far as precedence, it was a bending of the rules by ~V~ , and the moderators didnt have the balls to say,, nope, cant do it like that..

What?

Khan wrote:As far as a poll is concerned, as much as we would like to believe that we influence the administration of Zorg, this is no democracy. I am sure they take into consideration what we say here, but by no means does popular opinion set the rules. A poll is a good way to get a feel for the opinions of the community, but that is about it.

Zorg gave me permission a while back to alter the rules of war to more fit the games needs, so long as they revolve around the core that was set by the administration. So yes, i can alter the rules to some degree.

One thing i would like to ask though, in your idea of losing something when a surrender is called, what exactly do you suggest they "lose"?

I like Spankie's idea and had a thought along those lines myself, i'll look into it some more and start a poll when i've come up with a few plausible ideas.

-Istalris-

Maybe it would be best to establish some parameters for the conditions of a surrender. For example, the notorious "Owned by ~V~" tag is acceptable. Having an alliance refrain from attacking the weaker members of another alliance is acceptable.

However, setting the conditions as Alliance A must join with Alliance B or Alliance A must quit the game are unacceptable.

I think it would be best to define some of the parameters for a surrender and codify them so that everyone can have a clearer understanding of what the Conditions of Surrender can fairly encompass.

Khan wrote:Now, that it is inconvenient and certain members of HF have requested terms, all of sudden the terms are too harsh.

Ummm excuse me Khan but could you please show me where members of HF requested terms? Just curious because it seems perhaps I missed a post.

Witchywoman wrote:

Khan wrote:Now, that it is inconvenient and certain members of HF have requested terms, all of sudden the terms are too harsh.

Ummm excuse me Khan but could you please show me where members of HF requested terms? Just curious because it seems perhaps I missed a post.

Sorry, that would have been in PMs. I believe it was discussed already.

so now comes two cents form a know nothing noob. When discussing terms the Looser should have the right to demand war reperations say, a million res for every member of the loosing Alliance.

No that would be pulling/pushing via War. Another reason the conditions of Surrender need to be codified.

The current interpretation allows for a continuous loop of Declaration of War - Surrender with no conditions attached - Really just abandonment.

I am not sure why Zorg Empire has gone in such a different direction than the protocol that was already established here and in other similar games, but it does not make any sense whatsoever to me.

Sorry to dredge this up, Id completely forgotten about it. Imo, there should be more freedom on the part of the warring alliances to make demands. A popular one in a game I used to play was that each member of the losing alliance must fund a vassal planet for the victor alliance for a set period of time. The closest thing to it in this game would be to send mats daily to a specified member of the victor alliance for the set time period. Its not a direct comparison, as in DoM2 the Vassal Planets were planets owned by a member, but under a subjugated NPC/PC authority. You would have to pay any costs requested from that planet like resources, defences, mine upgrades, tech, etc that were oked by the Overlord player and a ref. It was a special exception to the pushing/pulling rules.