cant read all the existing thread, so my apology beforehand, if this subject was already dealt with.

but my suggestion would be, to allow troops-transfers also in diplomacy-, roleplay-games, because I often formed alliances with others, but wasnt able to help them properly, if I didnt share a border with our enemy. Most of the time I had to take lands of him (+ destroying his bonuses) to get to the enemy. So would be nice if this could be added. And you already have to confirm that you really want to transfer, so there shouldnt be transfers to enemys by accident.

In my opinion, this would also add tension to the rolegames, as you cant be 100% sure your ally wont use your troops against you.

Greetz, Jenkins.

It definitely would be a significant improvement. Perhaps an option enabled in the settings allowing you to transfer troops to non-teammates? That way it wouldn't interfere a whole lot with most normal games.

... Gift cards?

in alot of the matches I played in, gift cards werent enabled. And in my opinion, it wouldnt have the same roleplay qualities like transfering.

Greetz, Jenkins.

Create games with Gift cards by himself.

The problem with Gift cards is that this method requires breaking of bonuses to provide the transfer, which is a bit tedious.

Assuming they are in trouble already, their bonus will be broken... Also everything comes at a cost ;)

You can help any player quite easily with gifts and airlifts, you only lose the bonus for 1 turn:
Turn x: Gift to helper
Turn x+1: Helper airlifts troops and deploys income and gifts territory back
Turn x+2: Abandon territory and then surrender, typing "l" + x*"ol" into chat :)

Oh, almost forgot!

A really nice way I find to allow players to help eachother is through sanctions, you can set the sanction to hurt the enemy, or to boost the player you want to help (by setting the sanction as negative)

I find this is a less "warlike" way to do it, and it fits really well into Diplos and Role-plays I think :)

It Could be like financial aid allowing the person to raise more troops, but some interesting rules would have to be established to regulate it.

I don't understand, what do you mean regulate it?

To make it somewhat historically accurate, you would have to base it on economies or something like that, or just to balance the game, as certain states would become extremely OP.

Ex: Russia in any Europe map buffs Germany who buffs russia(This would end the game very quickly)

Effectively create limits on usage, as it makes no sense that waging a war would allow you to subsidize more allies at a much greater rate only a few turns later, assuming each turn is a year.

Edited 12/15/2015 05:46:23

...

Huh?

History is full of examples of Allies supplying eachother...

Yeah, what I'm suggesting is like in an Napoleon scenario that Russia doesn't subsidize britain because it couldn't do so historically.

So... Don't use them in that situation?

The problem was:
"I wasnt able to help them [allies] properly, if I didnt share a border with our enemy."

I've given at least 2 solutions better than:
"Most of the time I had to take lands of him (+ destroying his bonuses) to get to the enemy."

So I suppose I'm now stuck, what exactly is the problem you need solving Japan77? You want a way to help allies that doesn't involve transfering troops or income? I honestly don't see where you're coming from...

yeah, I know how the giftcard works, but why isnt there a transfer option in rp-games, when there is one in teammatches.

transfer of troops in a roleplay game would give you an option to support your allies without declaring war on his enemy.

e.g.: I played a GoT rp match yesterday, we (4 players) had formed an alliance of all Essos. Westeros (5-6 players) was united under one King. the guy of the North of Westeros always had an aggressiv attitude against Essos, so at the end he declared war on all Essos, but the King negotiated a solution where only Braavos and Winterfell fight eachother, and everyone else had to keep out of the war.
Now it would have been nice, if I could have helped my ally with troops without entering the war official, because the North was slighty more powerful than Braavos. We only would have had an opportunity to win against Westeros, if we could have managed to defeat the North. But in the end Braavos and the North ended in a tie and we voted to end.
Still, it was a really fun game, but it would have had more tension with allowed transfers. It would have improved the roleplay feeling. Just my opinion.

Greetz, Jenkins.

Edited 12/15/2015 10:21:48

and one more thing:

if you gift somebody a land, everbody will see that in a diplomacaty game (light fog), so everybody would know whats up. Thats kinda destroys a sneak attack.

Greetz, Jenkins.

not in current roadmap lol

lol

?

It means "laughing out loads"