Allowing friendly fire

[nymanjens]

Discussion: see https://github.com/nymanjens/Alliances/issues/18

[317070]

I suggest a different vocabulary. This is not easily readable Nominal ally -> Ally Nominal enemy -> Enemy Enemy in your team -> Traitor

[nymanjens]

Ok, so how would you cal "actual ally"?

Also, not that the rules are filled with friendly and enemy territories. I think it will be confusing if we use "Enemy" as nominal enemy when referring to a player, but as actual enemy when referring to a region.

[317070]

A player from your team?

[317070]

So you have players from your team, and players from the opposing team. You also have enemies and allies.

[nymanjens]

A player from your team is a nominal ally...

[nymanjens]

So I think what you actually mean is renaming the following:

• Nominal ally -> player from your team
• Nominal enemy -> player from the other team
• Enemy player -> enemy player
• Actual ally -> allied player

?

[nymanjens]

Is "nominal" such a hard word that we are willing to change its 9 occurrences to "player from your/other team"?

I don't see how that makes it more readable.

[317070]

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/first20hours/google-10000-english/master/google-10000-english-no-swears.txt

Is not in the top 10k. So yes, definitely too difficult.

I am not sure my alternatives are better. I would also avoid 'allied player', as it could be understand as a player playing with an 'allies-and-not-axis' nation.

[nymanjens]

I don't want to rule out a word because it is not in that list, although I agree we should strive for approachable words.

You probably have a point about avoiding the word "ally"

Feel free to re-formulate this.

[317070]

I looked it up, and the formal word for 'axis powers' or 'allied powers' would be 'alliance'.

Maybe we should have the concept of an alliance, and the moment an alliance is broken, all players outside of the alliance are treated as enemies. However, when reforming an alliance, you can only form it between certain nations.

This way, a lot of confusion can be avoided, I think.

Was there a reason you made a distinction between a nominal enemy and an effective enemy?

[nymanjens]

I renamed ally to friend, but I'm not sure it's any clearer.

The word "nominal" is used 11 times and I really don't want to make it longer.

[317070]

I see no reason to make a distinction between nominal allies and effective allies. Nor do I see a reason for a difference between effective enemies and nominal enemies.

It seems to me the main difference is the sea-to-sea? But I see no reason to treat that one any different.

[nymanjens]

It seems to me the main difference is the sea-to-sea? But I see no reason to treat that one any different.

Ok, so how would you resolve the situation of a nominal ally crossing a sea-sea point that you control and you want to stop them?

[317070]

He is your enemy, he cannot pass. Simple, clear. I have been thinking, that you should not be allowed to break an alliance on someone else's move turn resolving.

[nymanjens]

That sounds unfair. Does the enemy get back their move points? Is there no battle initiated? Why is it so different from moving through nominally friendly land?

[317070]

No, you cannot break the alliance in the middle of someone else's move turn. So, he can keep on executing his move. As soon as his move action is over, the alliance is done.

It is necessary to keep the rules simple and manageable. It does not remove a lot of game tension, but does reduce the complexity involved enormously.

The retreating, passing through countries, through the sea, distinction between nominal and effective, combat when passing through, .... Everything can be solved by just not allowing breaking the alliance mid-move

[nymanjens]

No, you cannot break the alliance in the middle of someone else's move turn.

The ability to do this is one of the core premises of this PR!

[317070]

Well, it's not necessary. The individual goal end-purpose is to stop piloting. I would like to break alliances mid-move, but with all the stuff and complexity which is added, I would rather drop the 'allow always'.

It is no use to allow to break alliances mid-move, only to have everyone need to resort to the rule book to find out what needs to happen exactly. Not only that, but it seems like it will make all other rules a lot harder to read too.

[nymanjens]

Ok, you make a fair point. I'll try to change the rules to say that you can only change the alliance at all times except when a token is being resolved.

[nymanjens]

Ok, the rules are much simpler now. Please take another look?