Great!

I dislike this 2 allies limit being retroactively applied to older Military Score games.

Is this supposed to be a slow-rollout? I've seen it working with shared ship information for a week or so now, but I still see no shared planet info. Can you make an announcement when all data and features are fully rolled out so that anything not working beyond then can be reported as a bug?

Shared ship information has always been there. Its fully rolled out now, so after host runs on your games you can start reporting anything you see wrong.

Joshua something is not working like it should. The game shows minefields that I know for sure they had been sweept. And It shows too overlapping minefields from two enemy players.

Know I don't know what minefields are real and what of them are not. Can you please fix it?

Now*

I should read before posting... Either way It's a bit anoying that my minesweep information doesn't have priority over the information shared by my ally. Would be nice if the minefields information shared from your allies could be shown with less intensity or something. I'll wait to see how does it goes ;D

Regards

Joshua, Share intel shares too the information from your allies. That means if race A is sharing intel with race B and race C. B and C will see all the information of each other like if they were sharing intel. ¿Is this sopossed to be that way?

Regards,

Nitemare

That shouldn't be. It should show information you've gathered directly (mine scans, sensor sweeps, visible enemy ships, plus your own information (ships and planets, how detailed depends on alliance level). It should NOT share information that your allies have shared with you, but you don't know about directly. In theory, through a chain of alliances, everyone could know everything about everyone else, which is no good. It's quite possible that my ally's ally's ally is my enemy.

Yeah, information shouldn't be transitive, if allies aren't transitive :P

Unfortunately, it is being transitive. I know I'm seeing data that there's no I'm allied to who would see, but quite possible someone they have shared intel with would see.

Which makes me assume that my opponents know know my exact fleet dispositions as well....

well, there goes a couple star bases...

Joshua, we are not receiving mail to announce the host run since that new feature had been applied.

Regards,

Nitemare

Is it possible to chain alliances?

A is allied with B
B is allied with C
C is Allied with D
D is allied with E
etc.

If so, how is victory determined?

(I would prefer no chaing allowed.)

Yes, chaining is allowed. However, victory conditions are only met if A is allied with B, B with C and C back to A. (They all have to be allied to each other) Otherwise they would not meet the victory conditions.

There is still a form to make information transitive. If player A is allied with B and has safe passage with C and C is sharing intel with B. A will be able to see all the locations and shis of C.

At what level are the Friendly codes that require alliance implemented? I'm thinking specifically about "ifm" which, according to Donovan's, requires an alliance to work over a planet not owned by the ship owner. I don't know if there are other examples but a table showing which are enabled at what level would be helpful.

I assume you mean "lfm" (Load Fighter Minerals)?
I would suspect it would be restricted to Full Alliance only (not Safe Passage or Share Intel), but I don't have proof of this.

lfm is not working over allied world with Share Intel and both planet and ship set to lfm...I just tried it this past turn.

Will try again this next turn with Full Alliance set.