Home Ideas, Suggestions & Feedback

We need new Moderators!


ModeratorWe are always on the lookout for talented people to join the team. That means you! If you think you could help us organise and inform the community while entertaining everyone then apply. We need people to help out on the forum, behind the scenes with announcements, on Discord and on our other Social Media channels.


If this is something you think might be of interest to you, HERE

Alliance Armies

beiber feverbeiber fever Posts: 281
I think there should be a army which members of the alliance could donate soldiers to. it would be just like donating resources only with soldiers. The soldiers would be stored in a alliance army barracks and would be fed by members of he alliance donating food to the alliance funds which the soldiers would be sustained by. Then the leader of the alliance or generals could use all the soldiers in the alliance army barracks and attack other alliance armies for large sums of honor and resources from the alliance cash box then each member of the alliance will get some of the resources plundered from the attack. The same basic rules for attacking would aslo apply such as you cant attack alliances that dont have as high a rank as yours. Also you wouldnt be able to use your alliance army on another alliance unless you were at war with them.And maybe the alliance could have a castle in a whole different world and you could only use the alliance army in that world... just a thought. Hope you like my idea!!! post if you like this idea and if you have any suggestions for any thing else!
Post edited by beiber fever on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] "You're an even bigger buzz kill than buzz killington!"
Find me at international 1! 992:497. Or on miniclip my user is harenjiform! Proud member of STEEL sword.

Comments

  • UltimateJhonUltimateJhon Posts: 767
    edited 17.06.2012
    they alliance barracks could be in the leader's castle and i completly agrea with you on that idea
    General of Greek empire.

    I own the fire sparta league , to join ask me , we stick together we die together.
  • AlcraighAlcraigh Posts: 361
    edited 17.06.2012
    And if the alliance army is full of just defenders? Your leader gets a massive defensive bonus but the other players don't benefit. Not going to work really gents.

    All attackers but your leader is offline for the week and your enemy is sending his alliance army at you? Not going to work real well in that situation either.

    Mostly though I can't agree due to your nickname -> beiber fever.......
    "Due to the rain, the revolution has been postponed."
  • MxnmanMxnman Posts: 129
    edited 17.06.2012
    Well an alliance leader shouldn't really be off for a few weeks anyway but I think this would work well with an alliance castle idea and could make alliance wars more interesting.
    Indie
  • AlcraighAlcraigh Posts: 361
    edited 17.06.2012
    Mxnman wrote: »
    Well an alliance leader shouldn't really be off for a few weeks anyway but I think this would work well with an alliance castle idea and could make alliance wars more interesting.

    And you don't think that the 10 hrs the leader is offline for sleep, a life etc would be an issue?

    Then what happens when the alliance army comprises so many attackers that it is undefendable against as it is being supported by up to 45 players? That 1 army can just go from target to target decimating entire alliances and players' armies.

    So, by having an all powerful alliance army you will have taken your strength of having allies (ie. numbers) and condensed it into 1 unit. So, what you perceive as your greatest strength - a massive alliance army will actually become your greatest weakness. One alliance army to kill another alliance army with - if your is destroyed, you have no chance against the oncoming carnage. I and my 20 allies didn't join this game to watch 1 person control all the attacks.

    It's a silly idea.
    "Due to the rain, the revolution has been postponed."
  • DarkMonicaDarkMonica Posts: 195
    edited 17.06.2012
    somehow when I need the soldiers--they will not be available for me to use either.
    DarkMonica @ usa 1
  • 12kroko12kroko Posts: 243
    edited 17.06.2012
    It wouldnt be that silly if generals could also controll the army
    12kroko @ WWW 1
  • AlcraighAlcraigh Posts: 361
    edited 17.06.2012
    12kroko wrote: »
    It wouldnt be that silly if generals could also controll the army

    But then you open up a conflict of interest. Leader wants it to go this way, Generals that way. Too many cooks...

    Like I said before - this idea turns a multi pronged attack force consisting of 20 players into a 1 army game.
    "Due to the rain, the revolution has been postponed."
  • beiber feverbeiber fever Posts: 281
    edited 17.06.2012
    you wouldnt donate all your troops only a little bit at a time darkmonica
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] "You're an even bigger buzz kill than buzz killington!"
    Find me at international 1! 992:497. Or on miniclip my user is harenjiform! Proud member of STEEL sword.
  • FlyingpigzFlyingpigz Posts: 294
    edited 17.06.2012
    Alcraigh wrote: »
    And if the alliance army is full of just defenders? Your leader gets a massive defensive bonus but the other players don't benefit. Not going to work really gents.

    All attackers but your leader is offline for the week and your enemy is sending his alliance army at you? Not going to work real well in that situation either.

    Mostly though I can't agree due to your nickname -> beiber fever.......

    Well, an alliance army is just that. An army. One to send out to set siege upon other castles. I don't see anything wrong with the idea, but maybe limit it to alliance members can only donate attackers, not defenders. As for the leader of the alliance being offline, this army should be controlled as an alliance. Where the leader and the generals control the army. So that way the leader can't abuse it as being his personal army. And if he's away, the generals can take over command of the army. Overall, it's truly a brilliant idea.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Favorite Qoute:
    -Hahaha, hahaha. Now you're just being cute. I can't GO to Pigfarts, Potter. It's ON MARS. You need a rocketship. Do you have a rocketship, Potter? I bet you do. You know, not all of us inherited enough money to buy out NASA when our parents died. Look at this! Look at this! It's Rocketship Potter! Starkid Potter! Moonshoes Potter! Traversing the galaxy for intergalactic travels to Pigfarts!" (Act 1, Part 4) -Malfoy
  • MxnmanMxnman Posts: 129
    edited 17.06.2012
    No I think it could be used if you have say each player donate 10 Troops so they are all perfectly fine and you have an army well over 100 and then attack the other players alliance castle and then gain some loot from the donation box? But have enough troops to defend your individual castles..
    Indie
  • xl5boxxl5box Posts: 131
    edited 17.06.2012
    Been suggested too many times and always have been said not gonna happen.
    I'm here to give my opinion , answer questions and if needed argue...


    xl5box @ WWW 2
  • AlcraighAlcraigh Posts: 361
    edited 18.06.2012
    I think an alliance army will negate the "offline" aspect to this game which does give smaller alliances and players a chance to avoid larger alliances attacks. If this came into effect, an alliance could send all it's might 24 hrs a day, rather than just the players who are online attacking someone with their personal armies.

    This is obviously an opinion page - I don't like it. I also don't think it'll be implemented regardless of how many of the forum users post their support for. Too dangerous in marginalising the game and minimising the whole "online" features of online gaming.
    "Due to the rain, the revolution has been postponed."
  • Jakarta_cityJakarta_city Posts: 89
    edited 18.06.2012
    Alcraigh wrote: »
    I think an alliance army will negate the "offline" aspect to this game which does give smaller alliances and players a chance to avoid larger alliances attacks. If this came into effect, an alliance could send all it's might 24 hrs a day, rather than just the players who are online attacking someone with their personal armies.

    This is obviously an opinion page - I don't like it. I also don't think it'll be implemented regardless of how many of the forum users post their support for. Too dangerous in marginalising the game and minimising the whole "online" features of online gaming.

    yeah,I not like this idea!!!if its happen maybe will happen the bigger attack the smaller so GG Empire make it 1 VS 1 so the bigger will just make a war with bigger so if this idea happen he bigger will attack the smaller and then there is a bad action like this

    Leader: DONATE SOME SOLDIER OR I WILL ATTACK U!!
    Knight:Please i have no soldier
    Leader:I SAID DONATE SOME SOLDIER
    bla...bla.....bla...

    so this idea bad
    Horas!!
  • MxnmanMxnman Posts: 129
    edited 18.06.2012
    Not really how an alliance works if the leader is like that anyway. Also I do think this will ever be implemented and like alcraigh said above it's more a matter of opinion I would say...
    Indie
  • Luke FieryswordLuke Fierysword Posts: 2,290
    edited 18.06.2012
    I like the base of the idea but the thing is that larger alliances that have been here forever and have many branches will turn this game into something only they can survive, they see any new alliances that can be a potential threat to their dictatorship they'll force them into leaving the game, and then they'll turn on each other.
    Roman Empire

    Ambition Courage Loyalty
  • beiber feverbeiber fever Posts: 281
    edited 18.06.2012
    yeah,I not like this idea!!!if its happen maybe will happen the bigger attack the smaller so GG Empire make it 1 VS 1 so the bigger will just make a war with bigger so if this idea happen he bigger will attack the smaller and then there is a bad action like this

    Leader: DONATE SOME SOLDIER OR I WILL ATTACK U!!
    Knight:Please i have no soldier
    Leader:I SAID DONATE SOME SOLDIER
    bla...bla.....bla...

    so this idea bad

    no one would ever do that to someone in their own alliance and you cant attack people in your own alliance
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] "You're an even bigger buzz kill than buzz killington!"
    Find me at international 1! 992:497. Or on miniclip my user is harenjiform! Proud member of STEEL sword.
  • Luke FieryswordLuke Fierysword Posts: 2,290
    edited 18.06.2012
    no one would ever do that to someone in their own alliance and you cant attack people in your own alliance

    Some alliance leaders are pretty mean, and what he meant was that the leader will first kick the "knight" out then attack him.
    Roman Empire

    Ambition Courage Loyalty
  • Silly GooseSilly Goose Posts: 56
    edited 18.06.2012
    I agree but I think it shouldn't be in the leaders castle becuase they would have an unfair advantage.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Silly Goose @ usa 1

    "I will take the Ring to Mordor! Though... I don't know the way."
  • Luke FieryswordLuke Fierysword Posts: 2,290
    edited 18.06.2012
    I say that the army could be based at an alliance managed military base, that way none of the allies can use it for their own personal use.
    Roman Empire

    Ambition Courage Loyalty
This discussion has been closed.