StarGateWars Forums

Well as some people may have seen in the vendetta corner JMX and Pele are having a one on one. They have a term that if one of them drops below 50bill defence they have 12 to build it over or they lose the war.

I thought this could be expanded to an alliance war. Say if you are massed you have a set amount of time to improve your defence by a certain amount. If they do not meet this term then they become a prisoner of war. Once a prisoner of war the enemy alliance leader has options on what to do with them. Options such as keeping them prisoner in which they cannot take control of thier armies so they cannot attack, but like any army without a commander will still function in the way of making resources and can be attacked to a certain extent. They would only be able to be held for a couple of days though under some sort of galactic treaty, so people do not lose interest and get frustrated. Other options would include maybe a complete surrender where they would temperarely leave thier alliance and could not rejoin until the war is over. Other options would include bribes for thier release and perhaps a new feature in which you could send covert reports of your friends in return for your release to bring back the roleplaying feature of the game.

Long paragraph, opinions anyone?

I think its a good idea but maybe restrict wars to only being say a week or 2 long because after a while people will have to keep rebuilding so much that their whole armies diminish.
Another good thing about this is that it stops alliances from warring with 0 stats, (meaning they can't lose anything, meaning a sort of stalemate)

sounds gud but bad for whole alliences in the same timezone lol imagine that a hole allience becomes pow's and theres like 1 person left in the allience that can fight haha

All are improbable. Wars are not controlable. Only if both sides agree and set full war. That wont happen. Its also not fair for someone who gets hit and is not able to log in for 24 or 32 hrs or so. Its also open for abuse as smaller alliances can be attacker repeatedly, time and times again by the same alliance or a small group of alliances working together. its also open to abuse as a single alliance splits to become 2, one side keeps the other captive for long periods of time and pulls resources they normally could not get. it could be a way for alliances to protect their own accounts that are vacationing.

Lore wrote:All are improbable. Wars are not controlable. Only if both sides agree and set full war. That wont happen. Its also not fair for someone who gets hit and is not able to log in for 24 or 32 hrs or so. Its also open for abuse as smaller alliances can be attacker repeatedly, time and times again by the same alliance or a small group of alliances working together. its also open to abuse as a single alliance splits to become 2, one side keeps the other captive for long periods of time and pulls resources they normally could not get. it could be a way for alliances to protect their own accounts that are vacationing.

The key word being 'abuse'. Nice idea Gus, but I think that people will simply get hacked off with it - i.e. not being able to control their army, but still open to attack. Too many open-ends in it.

Wolf359 wrote:

Lore wrote:..........

...... Too many open-ends in it.

those can be closed

Throw your ideas in guys, show how you think we could make this work.