why have a commander and/or officer of an enemy

[killtacular]

Well I see a few people on this game that have either a commander /officer's of an enemy. I just would like to see what peoples views are.

Myself / I think its a disgrace to the war process, yes your probably friends and have built up a game relationship but sleeping w/ the enemy isn't right.

I'd like to see some kicking going on by the commanders on both sides. One your income goes to the enemy / so does the uu. Just a waste of resorces if you ask me.

[Mordack]

Well I see a few people on this game that have either a commander /officer's of an enemy. I just would like to see what peoples views are.

Myself / I think its a disgrace to the war process, yes your probably friends and have built up a game relationship but sleeping w/ the enemy isn't right.

I agree.

Putting your own personal profit before your alliance is unacceptable, in my opinion. I'd rather make less naq and UU myself than aid my enemy's war effort in the process.

[Clarkey]

I agree too, it's a bit silly having a CO or Officer that is on the other side of the war. I'd say kick them during the war but can return again after the war.

The main reason I find it silly is because lets say someone in the war has an officer that is on the other side of the war. That Officer gets massed a lot in the war and asks their CO for help with resources etc. That CO gives their Officer resources to help build again, then that Officer resumes his activities in the war fighting against people allied with his CO..... rediculous or not?

[Curumo]

Sleeping with the enemy ... i'd say it depends on the enemy (j/k )

Seriously though I wouldn't do that but i can understand some of them. I myself, however, wouldn't do it until after the war though.

[The Doctor]

I can see why theyd want them (friendships and such) so I dont really mind it there...

And if you think about it...they may be giving resources to the enemy...but they are also receiving from the enemy...kinda cancels it out (and the percentage you would get would hardly affect anything)

[Severian]

The fact that a Commander can see:

-Intel Logs.
-Attack Logs.
-Full details on the officer's account.

May suggest in some cases they are acting in their own and their alliances' own interests rather than out of friendship. Surely that information easily outweighs any transfer of goods with the income/UU relationship a commander and officer share.

[Legendary Apophis]

Some people value more friendship than a war...I would keep my commander if I was on enemy side of my commander. Friendship > any war in this game for me!

[teesdale]

maybe they just get a pimpin amount of naq/UU from them, plus to drain an enemies income

[killtacular]

Some people value more friendship than a war...I would keep my commander if I was on enemy side of my commander. Friendship > any war in this game for me!

I have many friends on the other side which I do attack its how far you take the seriousness of the game.

[geisha]

Sleeping with the enemy ... i'd say it depends on the enemy (j/k )

why sleep with the enemy when the ally is so much sexier?

[Mordack]

Sleeping with the enemy ... i'd say it depends on the enemy (j/k )

why sleep with the enemy when the ally is so much sexier?

Geisha speaks from experience, of course. Just look who her officer is.

[Curumo]

Touche Geisha

[Teal'auc of the Void]

Friendship > game & stupid politics & propaganda.

RahL was my CO way back then when we were at war... and I'd never leave him, nor he would kick me, because of friendship we share.




Teal'auc

[Suzuk]

Maybe it's because they've been on PPT for the last few days, and they forgot to turn their accepting officers button off...



And they don't even notice when someone has been draining their income.

[Vendetta]

Sleeping with the enemy ... i'd say it depends on the enemy (j/k )

why sleep with the enemy when the ally is so much sexier?

Geisha speaks from experience, of course. Just look who her officer is.

we have PK.