[Aedolaws]

========================================================
The idea, in a nutshell, for those too lazy to read my by now very long post
========================================================

By making some (radical but easy?) changes, we will allow more players, both hardcore allied and softcore Bs and solos/n00bies to follow, and indeed play, universe politics. And I mean not only a few HCs. I mean everyone!

Given that if people think they don't have a realistic chance of winning at something chances are they will give up and not return ($pay$), by creating different games within the game we will develop several ways of winning and thus we will satisfy more players. And therefore, profits will likely increase, the game should survive longer...

============================================================

(1) Alliance flags

Why not add this? Each alliance & BG can design their own flag. (simple crap, although I do not know how much coding this will take). Once the HC decides to allow it (i.e. mid-round when most people got their coords), then players may choose to display their flag next to their planet, in the gal status and in their fleets.
While many top alliances will try to keep this secret most of the round. Many minor alliances and BGs may not. And even some players within alliances and BGs may opt to show it early on, out of vanity and b/c their coords are already known.

** all barbarians and rebels will show from tick 1

----------------------

(2) Changing the nature of alliances (of the game). The A- Class

Now, I propose, for the sake of RADICALLY CHANGING the current game dynamics (currently in favor of 60+/rookie+ alliances) to favor small clusters of friend/players that: A players can only attack A players, however, A players can be attacked by As and Bs.

All allied players would be branded with an A in the galaxy and fleets screens as soon as they tag. (but it will not show the flag unless HC and players choose to)
Then 'perhaps', in order to balance back the loss of targets, we might even remove the cap/bashing limit between A players. That is, every A player is fair play to another A player (politics allowing ofc, and please, notice the 'perhaps')

** A players main benefit ofc is the -1 defense bonus + the logistics infrastructure. ('Perhaps' we should increase XP points for defending.) And other long term lofty goals.

---------------------------

(3) (New) Battlegroups - The B- Class

Why not allow players to play in smaller groups (short term {1 round}) IN-GAME? A true struggle of a small (but my guess mostly rookies and vets) teams of rl or PA friends? Have a 5 players per BG cap. And keep their rankings separately. Their own top 10/20/50 list. <=== if any of all of my ideas should be implemented, it is this one. I think this is the key to PA survival (and no, I do not wish to kill traditional alliances, I know they are by now an intrinsic part of PA, and they should remain so.)

Battlegroup players are branded with a B, but unlike A players who can only attack other A players, or Cs other Cs, Bs can attack everyone (subject to the bashing limit). NOW, the key to these small bands of attackers is that:

YES! they will be immune from A players attacks. A players have to defend, and have allied/friendly B players pin their hostile BGs. Is all about politics. BGs will be offensive small bands going for XP to keep and roid to loose later. Alliances will be defensive/political monsters administering large #s of rocks and compromises.

YES! they will be immune from C attacks. Cs also have to do as best as they can within their gals or puny organizations. (thats why they will likely opt to move up in the hierarchy).

YES! The idea is that B players should focus on B players for the sake of rankings (so should A on A, or C on C), attacking each other, competing against each other. Surely most Bs will be recruited by alliances. But the idea is that they will be true battlegroups, devoid of the alliance defense stringencies, but perhaps benefiting from being recruited by one (i.e. logistics). They can attack anyone, yet they are immune from As and Cs.

As a negative, we should deny defense bonus to BGs, or perhaps punish them with a +1 defense (instead of -1). They will, just as their name suggest, be mostly groups of close friends focusing on offensive. (If you want to play defensively, join an alliance).

----------------------------

(4) In-(as in part of the)-game alliances - The C - class

Perhaps then, make default in-game alliances (i.e. the barbarians and the rebels).

All players automatically join one by default (i.r. the barbarians [no central command/no politics/no benefits {a.k.a. current settings but with a name and showing in the top 20 table}]) and then perhaps, if they choose, they may join 2nd one (the rebels [central command/limited politics]) as part of the tutorial crap or one of the noble houses (other extrinsic alliances).

From Class C, if players choose to, especially the n00bies, they can choose to play as a BG or in an alliance, once they learn they should if they want to experience that kind of PA experience.

Solo players (i.e. the barbarians and rebels) would be branded with a C. They can't be attacked by As, but they can be attacked by Bs and Cs. They don't have any def bonus and they can only attack other Cs [just to force them to take the next step, and move up in the hierarchy]).

** all free accounts will remain C - class

---------------------------

(5) In-game politics system

I picture a simple X/Y graph-like that shows which top 20 alliances and top 20 battlegroups are neutral, truced (default 100 ticks?) , at war, or allied. (perhaps excluding the barbarians who don;t have a command center, and perhaps giving rebels only the choice to truce and NAP). Forcing tagged players to play according to the uni politics (i.e. A players can not attack allied, or NAPed, or TRUCEd A player from another alliance)

We could even extend this to cluster politics. Same mechanics apply but to the cluster level. There can be tables for each cluster, and for all clusters. This will give clusters/galaxies and ministers/players something else to fight for. It may even resurrect the old gal camaraderie, and cluster's NAPs and wars. And it may finally give ministers something to do besides bitching about exiling the inactives.