small capital

ace10warrior (US1)

mini capitals for small alliances. to prevent big alliances from taking them too if your alliance is in the bottom half of the rankings in your server you are eligible to capture it.
now the troops that will be set for them will be half the regular capital. the kings guard will be called knights guard and will be reduced they'll be as strong and as expensive as vets. remember Vets are good units to low levs. there will be twice as many as regular capitals. this needs allot of work but its an idea the purpose is to spike interest in lower levels and war between small alliances.

rulernbrown2

anit gonna happen for SO MANY REASONS

NationConqueror

No, new capitals are in the do not suggest list, and these are included. I personally wouldn't want this also because then it would start a chain reaction from the alliances who don't have those either of the capitals, saying they want more, until there would be 500 capitals per server that were only as useful as an extra outpost.

Igneel Kruiger

very bad idea i am totally against this there have already been so many threads about capital and i dont think small alliances can handle building up as it costs loads of resources and they should better spend those resources in upgrading their castles and be happy with what they have

Manatee (US1)

They would just end up being taken over by the biggest alliances for their subs.

ZeMaster830 (US1)

Ace10Warrior wrote: »

mini capitals for small alliances. to prevent big alliances from taking them too if your alliance is in the bottom half of the rankings in your server you are eligible to capture it.
now the troops that will be set for them will be half the regular capital. the kings guard will be called knights guard and will be reduced they'll be as strong and as expensive as vets. remember Vets are good units to low levs. there will be twice as many as regular capitals. this needs allot of work but its an idea the purpose is to spike interest in lower levels and war between small alliances.

Pretty much useless. Because no low level can afford vets. And no higher level needs them. Also, it's on the do not suggest list.

therealsporer (US1)

seems like big alliance families would stock up their low lvl alliances with enough players to keep them. Even if my guys don't need it i don't want it going to someone else's. It wouldn't end up being something for small alliances, just another thing that strong alliances could use as a recruiting tool.

ZeMaster830 (US1)

Wrong thread. lol

jamdog

The whole point of capitals is that they a end game!!!! They are not there for low level players and never will be!!

seether4

never happen
but if it does big alli's wings would just take them so you'd be back to square one lol

Sirlancelot2020

Oh great,another noob saying "High level alliances get this" or "high levels get that!" What about all the large alliances that don't have a captial? Did you even think of them?
Capitals are endgame.It's to make you feel acomplished.Like you actually did something.That would get rid of that warm fuzzy feeling.And I'm all for warm fuzzy feelings.

ace10warrior (US1)

me a newb im a lv 54 in a large alliance was just thinking how to keep new players interested cause I keep seeing lots of low lvs go to ruins

Eric768 (US1)

Nope and nope. Sorry, but never going to happen I don't think.

Sirlancelot2020

Still that would be unfair.Not every high level alliance in the game has a capital.You don't even think of them.

Lord Plutonium

It has its pros and cons. I agree with all of you. I think, however, that there should only be 5 mini-capitals. I do think that the big alliances(on USA1: MISC, Team Legends, D8, Team Evolution, the Syndicate) will help their sub-alliances go after them. However, the rule should be this: If you are a sub-alliance, and your main alliance already has a capital, then you can not have a mini-capital. So, in other words, only one capital per alliance FAMILY. Tell me what you think. And please, do not be rude. I am only giving an idea. Also, tell me any more ideas that you have, and I would be happy to listen.

Sirlancelot2020

I don't think the game recognizes sub alliances.They weren't in the game at first.It's just something where the players made it in the game.

Lord Plutonium

That is true. They should add two more parts to diplomacy: Sub-Alliances, and Parent-Alliances

TheCatGod (US1)

Lord Plutonium wrote: »

That is true. They should add two more parts to diplomacy: Sub-Alliances, and Parent-Alliances

Yes, THAT would be a good idea. Then sub alliances can see attacks going on in the parent alliance and vice versa.

EmilioPlayer6

the suggestion's that piss me of the most asking for easier ways to get a capitol

deathoater

probably won't happen, but if it is considered, there should be a higher frequency and less powerful troops, or maybe very cheap troops and low stats. Honor level and alliances power are 2 very different things too. I'm thinking it be a extremely rare Outpost, but that's purpose wears out and most people won't want them at a high level.

Jamie White

Ace10Warrior wrote: »

me a newb im a lv 54 in a large alliance was just thinking how to keep new players interested cause I keep seeing lots of low lvs go to ruins

Just saying, lvl doesn't mean much about being a noob... I mean, take Billy96 for example. Highish level; well, need I say more...