Sorry for the late reply, but there is combat report for each round of combat. So if there are 4 rounds, there will be 4 combat reports.
Hereās the results from test #6 - What happens when multiple allies converge on a star occupied by a NON-allied player?
I made a slight goof in that I meant to let them win ā¦ to see who would end up with the star ā¦ so weāll re-run it. This particular location is interesting because itās a battle from core to core ā¦ so the distance traveled is exactly the same.
Some additional excellent tests suggestions by @Scape
-
What about what happens when player 1 and 2 orbit player 3ās star and player 1&2 go to war with each other, but stay allied with player 3?
-
What happens when two non-allied players land on a star owned by a mutual ally?
P.S. Jay wrote earlier āI think we wrote code to prevent dropping ships if the star doesnāt belong to youā and that is the behavior we are seeing via Test #1.
I.e. you can NOT give away ships to your ally.
You dont have to leave carriers at the star to be involved in the combat. Drop All and and get out of the combat zone!
Easier said that done sometimes - I posted my thought in the āCarrier Lost Defending Starā thread as this one is about testing formal alliances.
Test #6 - Hereās what happens when multiple allies converge on a star occupied by a NON-allied player and they WIN.
Test #7 went pretty much as expected.
-Ally ships were not donated to star owner before or after battle.
-Enemy ships attacked everyone (including owner).
-Ally ships defended star against enemy, with owner weapons tech level (3 at this tick).
One thing that is a PIA with the new āallied players all at the same starā is you have to click on each carrier to see who owns it. An easy/elegant solution IMHO is when you click on the star and see the columnar output, simple add another one that has the color/symbol of who it belongs too.
The colour is there, just the symbol thats missing right? Or do I not understand?
Oh yea ā¦ I didnāt notice it over there on the far left ā¦ yea, just the color, not the symbol.
Edit Add: I would suggest making the width of the color a bit bigger.
One request I would have is to add a way to transfer between carriers. Normally when they are at your own star you can move them up and down to consolidate them or divide them more evenly. But Iāve got two carriers on an ally star in a game and it occurred to me I could be more efficient in my next move if I could shuffle them around.
I think that there should be two or more levels of alliances.
-
I can not attack you and you can not attack me.
-
I can move through your stars and cheaper trades.
-
maybe: I can pick up your ships and even cheaper trades.
Just some ideas related to alliances.
P.S. Jay, you and your team (not sure if there is a team or if it is just you) are doing an amazing job, if I created a game it would be just like this. Good work! 
Interesting situation popped up in our game.
So a star (Ram) is owned by Rebel Automaton who is allied with Trucriot who has a carrier at the star. Since they are allies, they are co-existing just fine. Several others players are also hanging out at the same star who are allies of both Rebel Automaton and Trucriot ā¦ again, everyone is peacefully co-existing as they are all allied.
Trucriot declares war on everybody EXCEPT Rebel Automaton - remember, he owns the stars.
Over 24 hours goes by ā¦ and there is NO CONFLICT between Trucriot and the other players ā¦ even though they are all hanging out at the same star.
So I guess if you are friendly with the owner of the star, it doesnāt matter who else is there.
See the star āRamā in Neptune's Pride
It does seem like if two enemies are at the same star that even if they are both allied to the owner of the star, that they should fight (?)
Iām not sure which way is better. The way it is now, or having them fight it out.
I believe we also found that this scenario - Hulk will correct me if Iām confused:
Player A is allied to Player B.
Placer C is also allied to Player B, but at war with Player A.
If B has ships on a Player A star, and Player C Lands there, Player B fights defensively against player C even though the two are allied.
Not sure if that was intended or just a side effect.
Since Iām not on those stars, I did not see that @cptcrackers, but you would have the Event Log.
Your Player A-B-C was a better way to explain, so my example above in those terms is:
Player A owns a star and is allied to both Player B and Player C.
While Player B and C are allied, they both park ships at Player Aās star.
Player C declares war on Player B and after 24+ hours, there is NO conflict between them.
Note: unknown it if would be different if Player C landed on Player Aās star while at war with Player B.
Iām not sure if Hulkās situation should be considered a bug. It kind of makes sense that an allyās star is neutral space with no attacks between the war parties.
However, in cptcrackersā scenario player B should stay out of the fight.
Yes, this is by design.
Combat can be very complicated given you can have any number of players at a star each with different alliances. It would make predicting the outcome quiet difficult.
Imagine 5 players at a star. A the defender, allied with B and C. D is allied with B and E. E is allied with A and B and D. So A is fighting D and E, B is not fighting anybody. D is fighting A and C. E is fighting C.
Or something.
What happens when an allied player turns into a friendly AI while in orbit of your star?
Right now the AI doesnāt know how to play with formal alliances so they declare war, there is a 24 hour count down, then a battle will take place and you will lose a point of regard.
Ummm ā¦ so Iām pretty sure this is a change ā¦ in the Heretic 24-hour turn game, a couple of players just got wiped out ā¦ but as that happened, they Declared War on several other players. Since it happened on the same tick (and intra-turn), I presume that this was automatically driven rather than human initiated.
I guess you canāt take your alliances to the grave anymore! 