Dont need a complex suggestion to find a winner in wars.

[~Phoenix~]

Yeah its a good idea
No leaving the alliance during a war like you? oops ..

Dont start that again, I did more in wars for DD that I was in than more than everyone else, spar a few people.

[DUDEY]

I'm not starting anything
You know we're mates (Sometimes) hey triple

[~Phoenix~]

BUMP. Because I dont think this si getting the attention it needs to get.

If your in an alliance and you go to war then you should stay or surrender or make peace. Any of them, this idea covers all taht.

Except from peace bit, but both leaders could simply have a button to end the war if they both agree.

Simple.

PS. How come ppl got sticky's? I want a sticky

[Munchy]

Its simple really, make it so one alliance puts war on another and with that they both do 2x damage to eachother with 2x losses, PPT, purgatory and NOX have no effecst from someone in either alliance, no1 from outside the alliances can atk either one and viceversa.

If this happened you have see an increase in multies who just made alliances to declare war and thus make the other side not be able to ppt, or any of the other things mentioned. And if not multies, then small players who just like to be pests.

Here is my opinion on the whole 'make wars winnable' thing: Wars should not be short. They have traditionally been short because usually one alliance only attacks another alliance when one is so much bigger that they are capable of completely annihilating the other side. When alliances are closer in size both sides tend to be more diplomatic, and wars do not happen. Under the rare case that two balanced alliances(or more in some cases), wars do last longer, and stalemates do occur, which eventually forces both sides back to the diplomacy table, or one side simply gives up, as it should be(once again, just in my opinion).

Can the system be improved? Absolutely. It is just very hard to make ideas for it that wouldn't unbalance the game or have too many loopholes, or both..

[~Phoenix~]

Sorry but I already answered the multi thing. You have to have 5members and 1/5th of the enemy alliance power to put war on them.

So lets try see 5multis get 2tril power, not going to happen.

[Munchy]

A few crappy accounts with high AC levels could easily get 2 tril power(or more), especially if funded by larger accounts. They don't even need to be multies

[~Phoenix~]

If they are multis admin will ban them.

If they arent multis and funded then I think they are going to get destroyed, very thoroughly. And whoever funded them will be aswell.

[Bazsy]

Its simple really, make it so one alliance puts war on another and with that they both do 2x damage to eachother with 2x losses, PPT, purgatory and NOX have no effecst from someone in either alliance, no1 from outside the alliances can atk either one and viceversa. PPL cannot leave the alliance, outsiders cannot send the alliance recources and vice versa, people within the alliance can still send eachother stuff.

What would this do? No where to run nowhere to hide.. no ppt no protection no nothing.. it all ends when you press the lovely disband button.

That would do alliances set each other to war for the outside protection, and abuse it...

[Juliette]

Unless you'd code in the entire diplomacy mayhem...

[hfown]

heres an idea i just thought of, make a way to kill attackers and AC'ers, then your alliance automatically loses if all of your stats = 0

if no trades are to be done with any of the alliances in the war then maybe the "AT bank" idea in the alliance bank idea isnt so bad after all.... every week or so everyone in an alliance puts in about 200 or 100 ATs, so eventually it gets full at like 20k ATs or something and when a war starts you have a full alliance bank, a full AT bank ( no need for a UU bank ) and alliance leader or 2nd leader can approve withdrawals...... or maybe AT bank has too many possible loopholes?