So I have played many games in which there were a lot of different peace treaties and alliances formed and disbanded and reformed and back stabbed and so on. I don't mean you standard game where you form a good alliance and keep it through out the game but more of the ones where things continuously change as the game goes on.

First of all, let me say that I understand that this game is called subterfuge for a reason and that diplomacy and shenanigans are part of the game, I have partaken in such maneuvers myself. BUT I think that once you commit to being someones ally you should be loyal to that at least to a certain extent. I have come across many games where I would ask a neighboring player if we are remaining at peace as I would like to pull some troops away from our border to attack someone, he responds yes of course and as soon as I pull away he launches a full scale assault. Honestly, I feel that's just plain lying and just makes the game not very fun, this being an online game allows people to lie without any consequences, no emotions, since they don't interact with the other person face to face. That is the nature of the beast and I can't expect to change that BUT I think a few new game mechanics could solve this issue and make the game a little more strategic.

1. Implementing Peace Treaties and Alliance, for set time duration's OR indefinite. For example Player A and Player B agree to a Peace Treaty for 48 hours at the start of the game at which point no matter what happens the game will not allow the players to attack each other. At the end of the 48 period you get a notification that the Treaty has expired and you have the option to renew the treaty (both players need to agree) or maybe form an Alliance which would last until the game ends OR one player decides to break it (see Breaking Treaty and Alliance). I think this would prevent people from just lying and making others think that they are safe when they really are not. Players that lie think that they are being cleaver and cunning, but in reality they are just being *%$*, you have to trust someone and if they lie to your face how can you make any sort of strategic moves in the game.

2. Breaking Treaty and Alliance: If for some reason you decide that you need to break the treaty early or Alliance you would break it which would send a message to the other player that the treaty has been ended and that each side will be able to attack each other after X number of hours has elapsed (i.e. 12 hours, more or less depending what makes the game balanced). I am obviously not saying that all fights need to wait 12 hours before fighting BUT the Players that have agreed to a Peace Treaty should have the right to get prepared when the other player decides that he/she wants to lie and attack.

Obviously there could be other levels of working together such as non aggression pacts, or cease fire each with it's own rules on what can and cannot be done. For example while in an alliance we could have the allies troops temporarily stop at one of your outpost, like a visiting (open borders) kind of situation, where you don't necessarily have to gift the troops but still want to help you could use your allies outposts as a stepping stone to attack a common enemy. And if during being at one of your allies outposts you break the alliance then those subs are immediately redirected to their owners nearest outpost, I would think they would be granted immunity during the travel from attack by pirates and such.

Another perk of an alliance could be that you could gift your drillers and specialists at a 2x or 3x movement speed and maybe automatically get a bonus on production and electrical output which might increase the longer the alliance is held. This would also make alliances and peace treaties much more appealing and more binding than just typed words. I think players would be more careful choosing their allies and keeping their loyalty to the alliance throughout the game which would make the game much more fun and competitive. As it stands right now I never know who to trust in the game even if they say they are with me, I am a good judge of character but I can't do that through text messages.

Lastly, we could also implement pre determined team games where the alliances are already formed before the game starts and cannot be altered (i.e 2v2, 3v3, 2v2v2v2v2, 5v5, etc.). And you could make these games either random teams when all players have joined or invite your friends and make your own team take on a second team of friends, once the game starts everyone knows who is in which team and they play it out.

Just a few thoughts, not sure if this was ever mentioned on the forums before, I did a quick search for some keywords and did not find it but maybe I missed it at which point I apologize for being redundant.

All constructive criticism is welcome, lets try to keep the trolling to a minimum.

The idea of "official" alliances were considered during development, but it was decided things should be left up to trust, not a contract. So ideas like this have already been considered and are unlikely to be implemented.

Well that's sad to hear considering that the game has evolved into more pointless back stabbing than it should. Thank you for the response, case closed.

I wish we could give medals in anonymous. That's why I always run into this issue. People always break treaties when you are weak. If people are seriously gonna attack you when you move their troops away from the border, they deserve backstabber medals. I don't break demilitarization deals like that; I break treaties when I feel suspicious of a player plotting an attack against me. Anonymous is great, but there is no reputation on the line and some people are just cruel. Toxic means someone was in a bitter mood; backstabber says a lot. I admit to being too friendly at times since I got 2 trustworthy ally medals, but some people are seriously not getting recognized for no diplomacy and character.

While I like the idea of formal treaties, I also love the betrayal that can take place. I think a lot of the dissent over betrayal comes from people playing Subterfuge with different expectations. I always expect to be betrayed, just as a precaution. The objective of the game is to win, and sometimes a betrayal is the easiest or only way to achieve that gold medal. No matter how strong your alliance is, only one of you can get first. I understand that being blatantly lied to can be annoying, but it's also something that should be expected. People don't lie because there aren't any real consequences, they lie because that's just what some people do. I'd say almost all real-world wars involved leaders lying to each other at some point. No matter what systems are implemented, I doubt players would ever stop lying, and personally, I don't want them to! If you play the game with the expectation that everyone is being completely honest, a betrayal can be a devastating blow, both strategically and psychologically. But if you play this game expecting that everyone could be lying, you can be prepared for a betrayal. For instance, in a demilitarization agreement, instead of moving all your drillers away and hoping they do the same, agree to move 1 driller away for every 1 they move away. Or have a way to send in reinforcements if the need arises.

TL;DR: Only one person can win and people are bound to lie. It doesn't have to be a bad thing though, and proper planning can make betrayal less devastating. Just don't expect everyone to be honest.

tbh I think team play (like a 3v3, etc) would be good, the best and most optimal way to do things so that players have complete control over the game (which could e favoured by some (such as me) because it tests your pure strategic skill and not anything else which you don't have control over).

v3xt wrote:While I like the idea of formal treaties, I also love the betrayal that can take place. I think a lot of the dissent over betrayal comes from people playing Subterfuge with different expectations. I always expect to be betrayed, just as a precaution. The objective of the game is to win, and sometimes a betrayal is the easiest or only way to achieve that gold medal. No matter how strong your alliance is, only one of you can get first. I understand that being blatantly lied to can be annoying, but it's also something that should be expected. People don't lie because there aren't any real consequences, they lie because that's just what some people do. I'd say almost all real-world wars involved leaders lying to each other at some point. No matter what systems are implemented, I doubt players would ever stop lying, and personally, I don't want them to! If you play the game with the expectation that everyone is being completely honest, a betrayal can be a devastating blow, both strategically and psychologically. But if you play this game expecting that everyone could be lying, you can be prepared for a betrayal. For instance, in a demilitarization agreement, instead of moving all your drillers away and hoping they do the same, agree to move 1 driller away for every 1 they move away. Or have a way to send in reinforcements if the need arises.

TL;DR: Only one person can win and people are bound to lie. It doesn't have to be a bad thing though, and proper planning can make betrayal less devastating. Just don't expect everyone to be honest.

I have no issues of betrayal, but its the blatant lies that I have a problem with as mentioned in the initial post. If i ask you straight to your face will you attack me if i leave the border and you say no, then I leave and you attack that's just not right. And I understand that there is an unknown component to the game where you are not sure what the other players will do but since we all start with neighbors on 4 sides of us it is so hard to plan any real attack or strategy if i have to worry about EVERY single person around me. That is the point of diplomacy and making treaties isn't it? I agree to peace with you so i can focus on a full attack on another player? Instead a lot of times it turns into someone telling me that is is okay and i attack an enemy and then they take over the bases on my other side which then weakens me and i get hit by two other players and out of the game. A lot of my games now I just sit and build up my borders and wait for someone else to get hit so i can take advantage of it, that is not a fun way to play the game. No strategy there.

Anyways since apparently this was discussed previously and turned down there is no need to talk about it more.

But I would love to see some 3v3 matches or other team ups, and not just based on the honor system but locked in alliances so you have to work together and win the game using your tactical expertise.

I would like a little badge for certain things such as "peace-pact", " peace treaty", "war-pact" etc that have no real value other than being there for the two players(and only them) in those alignments to see. I think this would 1, make things more organized, and 2, create an air of more pressure around certain political moves.

Lying and backstabbing can be very easy for some psychopaths, and I believe to push the button simultaneously with another player that starts an official agreement carries more weight than just a chat message.

Personally, backstabbing can be kinda fun. I've often found that if one alliance is falling apart, it is very easy to slide into a new alliance. Trying to set up an official alliance would be very difficult to do.

My referencing: a game called Neptunes Pride 2 Triton. Noel talked about it on one forum, decided to try it out... (Btw, subterfuge is sooooo much better). Anyway, there were games where you could make formal alliances. Any fighters sent to their outpost would immediately gifted. You had to set it up in the first place though. It would've been absolutely useless, except that you gained research from it. Since there is no research to be gained in subterfuge, it would be hard to implement. Maybe driller/cap increase, but then who's to stop you from alliancing everyone and just racking up drillers.

TL;DR: tried it before. Don't think it would work here. Backstabbing can be fun sometimes too

Ok, so, as was already mentioned, this is not the first time someone has suggested formal alliances, and, as was already explained, this was considered and rejected by the devs before.
I'm not posting just to reiterate what was posted, but to explain why I agree with the devs.
You see, if someone asks me what Subterfuge is, I always explain it using the sonar (Cool Ghosts also explained this in their video series, but dang it, I had the idea first ). In Subterfuge, you can only see a tiny corner of the world, and within that corner, the majority of what you can see is confined primarily to your own actions, with the actions of your neighbors being mostly a mystery. Beyond your vision, everything is dark, everything is a mystery, and anything could be going on out there. I really like the way Cool Ghosts put it, when Matt Lees said something like, "You're gripped by this paranoia, and you're sending messages out into the dark, hoping for a response and hoping what you hear is the truth."
The chat system serves the same purpose. You can't read your opponent's expression. Your opponent can sit and formulate their response as long as they like. Your opponent could be talking to anyone, even your enemies. You know that your opponent could be lying to you, because you know how easy it would be to do it yourself. Most importantly, the only things you know for certain are your own intentions, and your opponents messages only hint at their true intentions, in much the same way that the map only grants you hints of your opponent's movements.
This atmosphere of mystery, paranoia, and darkness is vital to what makes Subterfuge great.
You could say, "Your opponent can still stab you in the back if formal alliances are implemented," and you're right. But if the reason you're asking for formal alliances is that you want it to be more difficult to betray allies, then you're missing the point of Subterfuge. This is not a nice game. It is, however, a fascinating study of human nature