A new alliance war type

[Thufir_Hawat]

Wars have always been fought with resources from inside and outside sources. In real life and the game.

No need to lock resources. Wars are not suppose to be quick and easy. Keep the wars how they are.


If you wish than make a set number of attacks in a day etc... is automatic war.
So many members from an alliance at war with another sets the whole alliance to war.

When both sides are set to war both alliances are locked.

Way to end war is one leader to surrender or both to set ceasefire.

If you wish then give the winner a temporary bonus and possibly the defeated a temporay penalty. 5% income or something based upon realative Alliance powers and attacks done. But only if it can be set ups where page 1 isnt winning page2 constantly for bonus and/or declaring wars not fighting but winning for a bonus.

Wars need to run there course, a day or week is not enough to see who has the most fortitude but only who has the most production and reserves.

Wars should be determined by Fortitude not bean counters.

I still would like to see some type of shield for when your online. It acts like Nox but only good for a turn or two. Protects only when your active but not when your not. Sucks building stuff and not being able to send reinforcements (repairs) while your defence and spies are killed in 20sec. But if there isn't than I can do the same to the enemy. But, that is because of my good connection, others have slower connections and stand no chance against another with a good one. This would balance it for some, or atleast be able to repair weapons and train units straight from bank funds.

[kinnell]

Here's a brilliant plothole, which can be exploited like whoa.

Let's say, I'm the leader of Alliance A. My friend is the leader of Alliance B. We set war to each other.

But here's the catch: we dont attack. We stay in war constantly.

Here's what we gain - no one can attack anyone in my alliance or his. We're COMPLETELY protected. The only people that can attack me is Alliance B, which is an ally.

INFINITE PPT! WOHOHOOOOOOOOO!!!!

[Dagr]

Or how about if some one does not attack the other alliance within 12 hrs the wars ends. They must wait 24 hrs before they can make another war and 48 with the first alliance they abused.

[Cerberus]

Great idea, but I say as a reward for winning you should get like, say, 100 G&R Points and the loosing alliance get like 25 for agreeing to fight in the war.

[Dean_S]

If the bonus thing came in about if the other alliance wins, that so could be abused for big players, by them making a alliance and getting a friend make 1...make 1 lose and he gets 5% extra income, with my income 5% is ALOT!!!! so now can you see how that is a stupid bonus...but if u want bring it in, by all means bring it in, it will do me some favors

[Dean_S]

Great idea, but I say as a reward for winning you should get like, say, 100 G&R Points and the loosing alliance get like 25 for agreeing to fight in the war.

that means i would be able to get to, erm AG in a day from starting the game....just keep starting wars....and win by using a friend to lose the other war

so ascended accounts would mean jack **Filtered**

[BL1P]

hmm the who wins thing cant be left too surrender alone.
there are too many ways that could be abused

if the war isnt limited too a time then 1 side has too be able too win in some way.

using the current system there are ways too create a winner

if damage on target score is ever double damage on initiator then theres a winner and visa versa (of cause this is calculated on the 5th day and then everyday so that the initiator doesnt win on his first attack)

if either side was too drop below 20% of there initial power they should lose aswell.

as a side note on this i myself belive that if 1 side has strike more than 10x the other sides defences and the strike is also stronger than the ofther sides strike there realms would be over taken in a war
by ocupation yes there are chances of a resistance by the other sides strike but minimal. this would just mean a win obviously

so too sum up

4 ways too win

1. surrender
2. causing 2x more damage on them than they cause on you (5day intervals)
3. smashing there power too below 20% its original power (5day then everyday)
4. overwhelming there defenses in power then rape n pillage

[BL1P]

as for the spoils of war i cant think of anyway of awarding this without it being open too abuse.

Except for the satisfaction or not at being the winner

1 thing i did post somewhere was of a realm called hell
if ya lose the war ya goto hell only way out of hell is too win a war in hell
or wait 4 weeks

too make hell realy hellish up and income could lose 5% while in hell
disbanding or leaving your aliance while in hell wouldnt be alowed obviously

bit nasty on the first aliance in hell or if your the only aliance there
but war is hell

[Brythalious]

I like the idea, lock outside resources if no one attacks time them out and perhaps if they don't make a certain number else they make 1 pathetic attack and stay in war.

Stuff like that would make a war interesting. Well even as just another form of combat.

Oh and no reward. Perhaps a surrender button for the leader to add to it (maybe for all) when you surrender it then counts it possibly on the alliance rank page or somewhere.

[hfown]

after both sides declare war.... send both alliances to pergatory realm

[Chris M]

i like it

[assyrian worrier]

the idea of new war types is definatley interesting. atm allaince wars are more a useless addon that needs some tweaks.

adding different war types might make it more interesting. once the war calculations are fixed (naq, uu and merc losses have a fixed value. according to this value points are given to both parties instead of total damage) it might be interesting to have differnt results.

maybe a price to start a war is also set up, so not every noob is declaring them randomly. thought of prices of 250bil-10tn (the more the better/worser will the outcome be)

- one war might end up in reperations:
losing alliance members income cut each by X%, winners ´members income increases (losers naq * 0,X / amount of winner members) or the whole sum is paid out to the allaince leader in advance (if thats simpler to code)

- one is about civilians
same calculation but total army size or UP is affected

- planet war
who destroys most planet defenses/ takes and keeps hostile planets
winner might get free updates or new planets. losers polanets are revolting and destroying facilities and def

- space war
only MS actions count, maybe the winner get a 10% MS boost in all ms stats, loser loses them, both for 2 weeks

- domination
the loosing alliance will be disbanded and the same name cannot be used to create a new one for 2 weeks.

just some brainstorming here...

this sounds good but what about personal bouts, people that just hate a leader of an alliance and there just going to keep doing domination wars to what ever alliance he/she is in

[The Mighty ANUBIS]

well u cant win every single war can you?

and theese war types are awesome!

it should be 2 weeks without joining after domination.

and in war only inalliance resources can participate and u cant jopin alliance if it is in war.

[Dagr]

Or maybe have it so only one other alliance can help fight/trade, but only one not both.

[SÅTÅN 666]

Here's what i've been thinking. Wars between alliances tend to go on forever with no one being declared victor until one alliance gets bored and surrenders. Part of the reason is that alliance members sustain themselves by trading or recieving resources from other players.

My suggestion is for a second type of war, an endurance war. This would only come into effect if both alliances agree to it and it would prevent the alliances from getting outside help. they would be unable to trade (except on the game market), they cannot be brokered and they cannot be sent resources directly. The alliance members also cannot attack players who are not members of the opposing alliance.

Please post any thoughts, suggestions, or holes in my idea.

No, It could be abused to easily! soz mate