Good update.

Yay! Alliances are here!! SquigglyFriends shall arise to the top!!!

Ok I see a join an alliance button, but where are the alliance systems in play, I don't see any new butons in diplomacy, I don't see any new game set ups mentioning alliance, so exactly where is this alliance system?

Ok so I guess that leads to my next question how can one protect a game against alliances, and or can one join more than one alliance.

Really nice update indeed. Hoping we get an alliance tournament feature in future. That would be cool.

Just to be clear. So any game you join could possibly have a group of alliance mates that have colluded to join together and crush everyone not in the alliance and you wont know this before joining? That sounds like wolf-packing. This of course could have been happening before the alliance patch...the new patch just makes it alot easier and gives them a chat to better communicate.

Maybe there is a rule on wolf packing. @Dr. Leprechan
I don't see this occurring too often in the previous bytro games thankfully.

Ok. I would like to suggest that game creations come with the option to not allow more then 1 from an alliance. People could use it or not use it, whatever they wish when creating games.

Annoying. I hated it in Supremacy, i won't use it here - is there any option to permanently hide that "join alliance" face from my game screens?

I sadly believe that the reason wolfpacking is not noticed in the other games is they wipe out the individual players as fast as AI's get wiped out. Take the game Chatters II there was a preset gang of 3 with a plan for a swift strike well they didn't have the usual chat, and some trades and a few other things broke down but they did manage to irreparably damage 2 players. I believe with on line chat its easier to keep communications clearer, Oh and they won't accidently send info to a non treaty member which on occasion happens with a message system. It was obvious from the start that more than one was in this plan, but to detect who was a bit up in the air. I'm sorry if you get 4-5 in a pack there is a method that could be sustained long enough to ruin 5-8 live players could it succeed totally not sure but worse than in actives leaving if 5-8 players were eliminated within 10-12 days you will again have a mass wave of players that will leave, and it will be an allies only game.

Solution one switch allied chat allowed X
allied chat not allowed

When that game is open it locks out any ally chat. So they at least would have the headache of having to close and reopen that game to see ally chat it would slow coordination at least to the point equal to the message system. I think that type of an on off switch could be manageable.

and whom was this gang of 3 slomoney? seriously you are making false accusations.

Let me ask this is a group regardless of size, go into a game and feed one of the players with all sorts of precious commodities in order to set up a campaign to take 79 provinces in 9 days, would you say the others of the group are not playing just supporting to me that is a classic definition of Wolfpacking. You Croaker are not even in the game so don't go accusing me of making false accusations when you have absolutely no facts.

Slomoney, you are assuming to much which could wrongfully harm innocent parties who are only guilty of one thing; through study, diplomacy, and above all else, strategic insight have out maneuvered his opponents.

I personally encouraged England to join the game who was in another game with me. It wasn't my intention to ally with him, and we are not allied. So regarding England, he was not part of any preset alliance. He did however very quickly befriend Scotland, Norway, and Lithuania, and myself. This apparently being his playing style.

Based on the character of the main individual in question displayed in the game, I'd say he is worthy of respect for his achievement and mastery of the game at this early stage. Furthermore, his overly kind attitude since the big event has hindered his dominance in the game and complicated things exceedingly. I'm a little confused at this point who is in league with who, but I in no way suspect that any cheating or unfair practice has been involved.

As you know I was attacked after 24 hours or so, and defended myself against one nation, only to be attacked by a second. Both of who are now defeated. I was wrongly slandered in the chat for buying my victory, which is offensive, and not true. The closest thing to that is my premium membership which is indeed advantageous, but not cheating. I didn't however, outright buy any units. Through careful planning I was ready to start producing mercenaries at the time of the attack. Along with some other strategic plays, I survived without cheating. Actually, when my enemies were finally defeated, more than half my army were mercenaries, and my economy was a disaster.

Consider this: Is is possible to capture an entire AI nation within the first week with these stats?

Netherlands: 1332 casualties
Burgundy: 11000 casualties

I know this player didn't cheat, though someone may suspect it. How could he anyway?

I believe it is your intent to be an honorable player. please by careful not to accuse people without definite proof.

report the player. click there name then report player button.Heck have them check for ducat use also. I doubt they will,would set a bad example but I give permission if that means anything. Ducat use is allowed but extreme ducat use in a community game is problay poor sportmanship. I am Lithuanian and since some companies will ban a player first then check the problem,not saying bytro is this way, I feel the need to explain. I just use different name in forum. Wonder what you will think when Savoy's economy ,military explodes which is coming judging by his new provs and newspaper reports.
Brandenburg's forces were hurt by heavy losses expanding for whatever reason and he was number 2 in territory. Plus they were split helping denmark repel the english . Denmark had almost no army left. So 3 nations quickly became one. And of course the merc factor. I made 0trades with england and norway I think. I traded 5000raw minerals for 5000food with scotland only. And he needed the minerals I assume. Heck if I had traded with you our trade volume would of been almost as heavy.
But now to the issue,so I accused you of accusing me when you didnt know you were accusing me. I made my accusations without the facts even though your facts seem to be more like random guessing. Like I said before if you suspect this kind of thing report the player next time. This shouldn't be in the public forum. Everyone in the said game knows exactly who you are talking about.
I do enjoy your roleplaying and hope things sort themselves out.

Im not in said game. Id appreciate knowing what Slo has to say. The follow up reply makes you look guilty. I might have been born at night, but it wasnt last night.

No I am done with this,
1. I was trying to explain my objection to alliances in an open game that had a distinct advantage with an in game chat.

2. I do find it devious and poor sportsmanship to use one name in game and one out of game(in forum).

3. Congratulations Lannister21 //Croaker on your finding a way to surge that far in so little time.

This starts to become a blacklisting issue and I will shut this down faster than anyone can blink. Straighten it out in here please.