Inactive Topic Locked Wars

MartinusV

Strategos
Proposal:
Locked Wars between alliances. Each alliance can only war with one other for a period of time or once objectives for that war have been reached. As simple as conquering 20 cities from the enemy.



Reason:
1. This will allow more alliances to grow at the beginning of the game as the big alliance in the ocean cannot bully all the others. They have to finish the 1st war before moving on to the next.
2. As you can only war against 1 alliance this stops multiple alliances ganging up on others.

Details:
1. Founders declare war on an alliance and there is a time limit for them to accept. In this case both parties agree to the war.
2. If after the time limit expires and nothing has been accepted the aggressor can attack that alliance and the war will begin as soon as the 1st city is conquered.
3. Perhaps awards for the number of wars won. Awards for how quickly the war was won. Reports on how many wars each alliance has won against the other.

Visual Aids:
N/A

Balance:
Im not an IT expert but it seems you can block players attacking others who are banned or have beginners protection. Are you able to configure something so that you can only attack an alliance you are actually at war with. During this time all other players/alliances are blocked to your alliance.

Abuse Prevention:
It can be abused. perhaps 2 alliances go to war against each other so a bigger alliances cannot attack them. But at the end of the day one of them needs to win the war in order to start a war with another. So yes they can swap cities but will alliances be willing to simply hand over 20 cities to another for the war to be over. The spirit of the gameplay is more in jeopardy here than cheating.

Summary:
I feel this is an idea just because of the amount of moaning on the externals about alliances ganging up on another. It seems to happen in all worlds. The idea behind this is you can only war with one other alliance at a time. So if you were to take Golgi with Muskets fighting No Brakes which is pretty even in numbers. No other alliance can join in which really shows the players skill level and the skill level of the alliance. No longer is it a numbers game. No Speed Limit pacted with No Brakes can obviously be allies in the sense that they cannot attack them and as such they fight an equal size enemy who may be pacted with Muskets.

Concerns.
1. War Declaration. In the event the other alliance doesn't accept. Perhaps there is a better way to force them into the war.
2. The War objective to win. 20 cities. 30 cities. Total points accumulated by conquests. Total ABP (to encourage attackers).
3. Alliances going to war in order to avoid another attacking them. Against the spirit of the game more than anything but at the end of the day to break free of the war one would have to hand over 20 cities to the other.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MartinusV

Strategos
Hi Fig.

If i could add to the idea please.

Amendment
You can only attack players you are at war with and any player who is not in an alliance (farming)
You cannot attack allied players
1. This will prevent alliances internalising players who do not log on every second of the day. Far too many expect this from their players. In order to attack they must first kick however the kicked player may now join an alliance which isnt as strict in regards to logging on.
2. This will make it harder for those players who love attacking each other for bp and then boasting about their abp rank. Let us really see who the toughest fighters are.

Delcaration of war that is not accepted which was an issue. Perhaps there is a time period in that if that alliance does not accept the war you can attack them but in order for the war to begin you must conquer a city within 18 or 24 hours. This gives the non aggressive alliance a chance to defend with every last man to prevent the war. During this period nobody can leave either alliance. If the defenders do not lose a city they are given a period of grace in which they cannot be attacked by any player in that alliance until it is over.

New gameplay tactics would be interesting. Imagine muskets at war with no brakes and killer bees suddenly found 100 cities amongst one of the other alliances core ocean. Do you continue the war with muskets or deal with the new threat.

Just a few thoughts for now
 

ImPreeetySure

Phrourach
Hi Fig.

If i could add to the idea please.

Amendment
You can only attack players you are at war with and any player who is not in an alliance (farming)
You cannot attack allied players
1. This will prevent alliances internalising players who do not log on every second of the day. Far too many expect this from their players. In order to attack they must first kick however the kicked player may now join an alliance which isnt as strict in regards to logging on.
2. This will make it harder for those players who love attacking each other for bp and then boasting about their abp rank. Let us really see who the toughest fighters are.

Delcaration of war that is not accepted which was an issue. Perhaps there is a time period in that if that alliance does not accept the war you can attack them but in order for the war to begin you must conquer a city within 18 or 24 hours. This gives the non aggressive alliance a chance to defend with every last man to prevent the war. During this period nobody can leave either alliance. If the defenders do not lose a city they are given a period of grace in which they cannot be attacked by any player in that alliance until it is over.

New gameplay tactics would be interesting. Imagine muskets at war with no brakes and killer bees suddenly found 100 cities amongst one of the other alliances core ocean. Do you continue the war with muskets or deal with the new threat.

Just a few thoughts for now
You can edit and therefore put this information into the original post yourself :) Also I'm against the idea