battles/forts

[dardar]

mabe during war there could be "forts" to capture and "battles" to win. like u and a couple of ur friends wen ur going to mass some ppl there could be a start to a battle and u can name the battle w/e u want. and then it goes on till one side surrenders the battle but doesnt surrender the war. and u gain a "fort" or something. just an idea to throw out there. feel free to add or w/e u want to this.

[dominater92]

For each one the alliance captures, they get an award of say 100B naq?

Could have it as a new war type, like capture 5 forts and hold them for 24 hours to win etc.

[dardar]

me was thinking of possibly it all strategy. u win a battle/capture a fort and ur possibly "winning" the war depending on how major the fort/battle was. if u vote post something id like to hear ur opinion

[Lore]

I see it as nearly impossible to make even remotely fair unless it took both sides agreeing like 3 to 5 days in advance.

Other wise it will just be one alliance suprise massing another and gaining a victory, or an alliance 2 or 3 times the size of another taking first strike as well.

Just seems so exploitable. Expecially the 100Bill victory pursue. Two friendly alliances can gain unlimited amounts of naq that way.

[dardar]

i gues it may seem exploitable wen looked at it that way.

[Demon Lord Razgriz]

I see it as nearly impossible to make even remotely fair unless it took both sides agreeing like 3 to 5 days in advance.

Other wise it will just be one alliance suprise massing another and gaining a victory, or an alliance 2 or 3 times the size of another taking first strike as well.

Just seems so exploitable. Expecially the 100Bill victory pursue. Two friendly alliances can gain unlimited amounts of naq that way.

Have where the naq comes from the loser and if they don't have enough, it comes out of their soldiers.