War system/massive weapon

by seaborgium Sun Nov 20, 2011 7:34 pm

Here is what I am thinking. You set an allinace to hostile. For every XX amount raids/kuwal hits you make a hostility bar goes up, as long as they are on none 0 def players. If a player is 0ed then it counts all hits for 12 hours after. For every hostile action, Assault, Hunt Assassins, Invasion, Destruction, Assns, and sabbing done it goes up. However if it is only 1 saided it goes up slowly. if both sides does it a lot then it goes up faster.
Once the bar hit s full it opens the full war options. one being tracking of stats of that war since the hostile setting.
It would also open a super weapon. A black whole, my idea is that the cost is based on the allinace production at the time of the war setting. Everyone in the allinace can take part inpay for it. Now once its paid for they can send it against the enemy allinace. Where that allinace loses a % of over all production, UP, Income, maybe weapon/trianing/AF buildings. For the enemy alliance to get rid of it they have to pay into a fund to get rid of it, just like building it. Now while they are getting rid of one they can also build one.
You can only build one. Once the previous one is destroyed you can build another.

by Nomad Sun Nov 20, 2011 7:42 pm

needs 2 additions

1 a way to set it to "max" by an agreement of the 2 alliance leaders.

Second, the main issue is it sounds to me like the first to strike gets the advantage since they strike first and get their SW fired first. The opposition has to pay 2 times as much, 1 to build their own to return fire, and 1 to negate the effects of the SW fired upon them.

by Keinutnai Sun Nov 20, 2011 7:43 pm

Explain how many hits would be necessary to open full war option.

Let's assume that both alliances produce 25 billion kuwal per turn (1.2 trillion per day).

How much would it cost to activate the weapon and how much damage would it deal?

What exactly would the alliance lose?

and what if the alliance that gets attacked doesnt produce 25 billion kuwal per turn, but only 2.5 billion.

make a suggestion.

by seaborgium Sun Nov 20, 2011 7:54 pm

Nomad wrote:needs 2 additions

1 a way to set it to "max" by an agreement of the 2 alliance leaders.
What do you mean by max?
Second, the main issue is it sounds to me like the first to strike gets the advantage since they strike first and get their SW fired first. The opposition has to pay 2 times as much, 1 to build their own to return fire, and 1 to negate the effects of the SW fired upon them.
If I set say WR to hostile, then they set hostile then it would speed up the process. If I would set them to war, they set war back, they could start building it first. So a first strike wouldn't really be possible for 1 side. As for the 2 times as much...
Alliance A makes/ sends there's
Alliance B can make and send there's
Then start to get rid of there's.
OR they can work on both.
Once they send one, then Alliance A has to get rid of there's.

Keinutnai wrote:Explain how many hits would be necessary to open full war option.
I don't know, thats something that would need to be worked out
Let's assume that both alliances produce 25 billion kuwal per turn (1.2 trillion per day).
I don't know, thats something that would need to be worked out
How much would it cost to activate the weapon and how much damage would it deal?
I don't know, thats something that would need to be worked out
What exactly would the alliance lose?
Like how much? I don;t know thats something that has to be worked out.
and what if the alliance that gets attacked doesnt produce 25 billion kuwal per turn, but only 2.5 billion.
To make or destory one depends on the production of the allinace.
make a suggestion.
I did just now think of it. What to do if someone joins/leaves the allinaces during the on going war...
I have a few ideas but I am not sure what to think.

by Nomad Sun Nov 20, 2011 8:00 pm

Basicly a way for both alliances to decide to start a war, and get to count all war activities, in other words they both say ok lets fight, both hit a button, and the hostility bar maxs out from first strike, not waiting for it to build up.

by seaborgium Sun Nov 20, 2011 8:06 pm

by Manleva Mon Nov 21, 2011 8:49 am

Personally I think that this is something that would fit in more with Starwolf's Super Weapon Thread rather than a separate thread.

Combining the two ideas would produce a better discussion.

by seaborgium Mon Nov 21, 2011 11:15 am

Manleva wrote:Personally I think that this is something that would fit in more with Starwolf's Super Weapon Thread rather than a separate thread.

Combining the two ideas would produce a better discussion.

I disagree, this is an allinace war weapon. It affects the production, it doesn't kill anything.

Keinutnai wrote:Explain how many hits would be necessary to open full war option.
Let's assume that both alliances produce 25 billion kuwal per turn (1.2 trillion per day).
How much would it cost to activate the weapon and how much damage would it deal?
What exactly would the alliance lose?
and what if the alliance that gets attacked doesnt produce 25 billion kuwal per turn, but only 2.5 billion.
make a suggestion.

Number of attacks needed:
roughly 250 1 sided attacks would bring it to full war
125 attacks if both sides are going at it

Cost:
To make one/destroy, I would go with 1.5 days worth of production of both Kuwal and Total UP.
- Alliance A makes 1.2T a day and 5m UU a day then the cost for them to make it would be 1.8T kuwal and 7.5m UU.
- Alliance B makes 750B a day and 2m a day then for them to implode it up would be 1.125T and 3m UU.

Time frame for damage I would give is max 2 weeks then it implodes, or until the defenders destroy it

Damage:
It wouldn't cause any "damage" per say, you wouldn't have to rebuild anything.
It would lower your Kuwal, Total UP by 25%.
If weapon/trianing/AF buildings are also in it, then lower then also by 25%.

Limits:
Only 1 SW can be used against any allinace at a time.
All players in an allinace count towards production cost unless on vacation.
Can only build 1 at a time, the first one has to be destroyed or burned out before you can start on another.
Min of 24 hours before you deploy it.

Side note:
Timeframe for attacks, I am not sure what I should use for that.
What to do about players coming and going.
I was thinking
IF a player leaves after a SW has been deployed on there former allinace they still feel the affects until the attacking allinace removes them from the affects or it is destroyed by former allinace or the 2 week limit.
IF a player joins while building or destroying the SW the cost goes up by there productions.
IF a player leaves while building or destroying the SW the cost doesn't change.

Idea for twist, if an allinace makes one and doesn't deploy it, after 72 hours it turns against the allinace.

by Manleva Tue Nov 22, 2011 8:59 am

seaborgium wrote:
Manleva wrote:Personally I think that this is something that would fit in more with Starwolf's Super Weapon Thread rather than a separate thread.

Combining the two ideas would produce a better discussion.

I disagree, this is an allinace war weapon. It affects the production, it doesn't kill anything.
It's still following along the same lines as Starwolf's suggestion and falls in with the direction that that discussion was heading in. Starwolfs was a weapon built by an alliance but never mind, I suppose we can cover very similar concepts in two places

Keinutnai wrote:Explain how many hits would be necessary to open full war option.
Let's assume that both alliances produce 25 billion kuwal per turn (1.2 trillion per day).
How much would it cost to activate the weapon and how much damage would it deal?
What exactly would the alliance lose?
and what if the alliance that gets attacked doesnt produce 25 billion kuwal per turn, but only 2.5 billion.
make a suggestion.
Number of attacks needed:
roughly 250 1 sided attacks would bring it to full war
125 attacks if both sides are going at it

Cost:
To make one/destroy, I would go with 1.5 days worth of production of both Kuwal and Total UP.
- Alliance A makes 1.2T a day and 5m UU a day then the cost for them to make it would be 1.8T kuwal and 7.5m UU.
- Alliance B makes 750B a day and 2m a day then for them to implode it up would be 1.125T and 3m UU.

Costing model is fair to alliances but what is the payment model
1. Do all alliance members have to front up their share of the cost or can it be financed by a small percentage of the alliance membership

Time frame for damage I would give is max 2 weeks then it implodes, or until the defenders destroy it

Damage:
It wouldn't cause any "damage" per say, you wouldn't have to rebuild anything.
It would lower your Kuwal, Total UP by 25%.
If weapon/trianing/AF buildings are also in it, then lower then also by 25%.

How long does the reduction last for and when it is over does it just jump back to normal or will it be a gradual return to normal
e.g. 25% reduction for x period followed by x% change per turn until 100% production is reached

Will it impact on buildings that can be targeted with Airforce action when it's implemented

Limits:
Only 1 SW can be used against any allinace at a time.
All players in an allinace count towards production cost unless on vacation.
Need to consider the retention of long term vacationed players and it's effect on vacationed players who return after the weapon has been fired
Can only build 1 at a time, the first one has to be destroyed or burned out before you can start on another.
Min of 24 hours before you deploy it.

Side note:
Timeframe for attacks, I am not sure what I should use for that.
What to do about players coming and going.
I was thinking
IF a player leaves after a SW has been deployed on there former allinace they still feel the affects until the attacking allinace removes them from the affects or it is destroyed by former allinace or the 2 week limit.
What about players who leave the attacking alliance after the weapon is fired so that they miss any retaliatory action
IF a player joins while building or destroying the SW the cost goes up by there productions.
IF a player leaves while building or destroying the SW the cost doesn't change.

Destruction of super weapon needs to be expanded further, how will it be done

Idea for twist, if an allinace makes one and doesn't deploy it, after 72 hours it turns against the allinace.

The idea and concept is good but there are a lot of holes that could lead to potentially lead to exploitation.
also how do you deal with hidden alliances and one player alliances.

I would also consider the possibility of the weapon being multi faceted so that it can target production and/or military units

by seaborgium Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:55 am

Manleva wrote:
seaborgium wrote:
Manleva wrote:Personally I think that this is something that would fit in more with Starwolf's Super Weapon Thread rather than a separate thread.

Combining the two ideas would produce a better discussion.

I disagree, this is an allinace war weapon. It affects the production, it doesn't kill anything.
It's still following along the same lines as Starwolf's suggestion and falls in with the direction that that discussion was heading in. Starwolfs was a weapon built by an alliance but never mind, I suppose we can cover very similar concepts in two places
He is looking at killing units, his also started as anyone not just allinace building. This is just for allinace wars.

Keinutnai wrote:Explain how many hits would be necessary to open full war option.
Let's assume that both alliances produce 25 billion kuwal per turn (1.2 trillion per day).
How much would it cost to activate the weapon and how much damage would it deal?
What exactly would the alliance lose?
and what if the alliance that gets attacked doesnt produce 25 billion kuwal per turn, but only 2.5 billion.
make a suggestion.
Number of attacks needed:
roughly 250 1 sided attacks would bring it to full war
125 attacks if both sides are going at it

Cost:
To make one/destroy, I would go with 1.5 days worth of production of both Kuwal and Total UP.
- Alliance A makes 1.2T a day and 5m UU a day then the cost for them to make it would be 1.8T kuwal and 7.5m UU.
- Alliance B makes 750B a day and 2m a day then for them to implode it up would be 1.125T and 3m UU.

Costing model is fair to alliances but what is the payment model
1. Do all alliance members have to front up their share of the cost or can it be financed by a small percentage of the alliance membership
I had been thinking about this. most games I have played that have this type of weapon. It is funded with money.
However in this game we could do Kuwal, UU, Ats all at the 7 day value displayed in the market area.
I was thinking it could be financed by anyone for any amount.
Time frame for damage I would give is max 2 weeks then it implodes, or until the defenders destroy it

Damage:
It wouldn't cause any "damage" per say, you wouldn't have to rebuild anything.
It would lower your Kuwal, Total UP by 25%.
If weapon/trianing/AF buildings are also in it, then lower then also by 25%.

How long does the reduction last for and when it is over does it just jump back to normal or will it be a gradual return to normal
e.g. 25% reduction for x period followed by x% change per turn until 100% production is reached
I thought I said 2 weeks or until it was destroyed. I do like the idea of 25% reduction to start, then as the defending allinace starts to pay to get rid of it, the % drops as it gets weaker.
Will it impact on buildings that can be targeted with Airforce action when it's implemented
I am not sure about buildings tbh, I originally thought for UU and kuwal.
Limits:
Only 1 SW can be used against any allinace at a time.
All players in an allinace count towards production cost unless on vacation.
Need to consider the retention of long term vacationed players and it's effect on vacationed players who return after the weapon has been fired
Same as if someone just joined. They are affected just like everyone else. Vac players are just that vac. They aren't affected, but if they come back then they are.
Can only build 1 at a time, the first one has to be destroyed or burned out before you can start on another.
Min of 24 hours before you deploy it.

Side note:
Timeframe for attacks, I am not sure what I should use for that.
What to do about players coming and going.
I was thinking
IF a player leaves after a SW has been deployed on there former allinace they still feel the affects until the attacking allinace removes them from the affects or it is destroyed by former allinace or the 2 week limit.
What about players who leave the attacking alliance after the weapon is fired so that they miss any retaliatory action
Good point, I don't know of any way to get around that.
IF a player joins while building or destroying the SW the cost goes up by there productions.
IF a player leaves while building or destroying the SW the cost doesn't change.

Destruction of super weapon needs to be expanded further, how will it be done
There would be a screen, you put funds into and a "technology" is developed that gets rid of it.
Idea for twist, if an allinace makes one and doesn't deploy it, after 72 hours it turns against the allinace.

The idea and concept is good but there are a lot of holes that could lead to potentially lead to exploitation.
also how do you deal with hidden alliances and one player alliances.
Hidden alliances, same as elsewhere, they don't mean anything.
One player alliances, would/could be affected the same way, there cost to get rid of it would be the same as anyone else, a set % of there income/production.
I would also consider the possibility of the weapon being multi faceted so that it can target production and/or military units
If we went into the mlti faceted then yes Starwolf and this idea could come together, but most people like things simple.

Just for reference:
Was written by Manleva
Was written by seaborgium

by Keinutnai Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:26 pm

Do I understand right the following:

After certain amount of farm hits (within what timeframe?)
alliance A can build a superweapon that will cost 1.5 days of income and uu production.

They release it on alliance B, then alliance B suffers 25% income and up penalty until they pay 1.5 days of their own alliance production? Or do they have to pay as much as alliance A paid?

Other questions I got:
How do you prevent alliances from lowering their costs by letting their members leave the alliance, or go on vacation prior to building the superweapon?

how do you prevent defending alliances to have their members prevent damage by leaving the alliance, or decreasing the repayment cost by leaving or vacating themselves?

If alliance B has to pay as much as alliance A to defeat the superweapon, then if the attacked alliance is a small alliance, it will be put at a big disadvantage.

If alliance B has to pay 1.5 days of production then the attacked alliance will be at a big disadvantage if the attacked alliance is a big alliance.

What are you going to do against that?

by seaborgium Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:31 pm

Keinutnai wrote:Do I understand right the following:

After certain amount of farm hits (within what timeframe?)
alliance A can build a superweapon that will cost 1.5 days of income and uu production.
timeframe I am not sure, I was thinking 3 days, but then that would be kinda short notice.So I don't know what timeframe to use
They release it on alliance B, then alliance B suffers 25% income and up penalty until they pay 1.5 days of their own alliance production? Or do they have to pay as much as alliance A paid?
It is based on allinace B production
Other questions I got:
How do you prevent alliances from lowering their costs by letting their members leave the alliance, or go on vacation prior to building the superweapon?
You can't. Its just not vesable, the only way would be what the avg production over the last 7 days or something
how do you prevent defending alliances to have their members prevent damage by leaving the alliance, or decreasing the repayment cost by leaving or vacating themselves?
You can't. Once its been release it affects the players
If alliance B has to pay as much as alliance A to defeat the superweapon, then if the attacked alliance is a small alliance, it will be put at a big disadvantage.
Alliance B pays 1.5 times THEIR production
If alliance B has to pay 1.5 days of production then the attacked alliance will be at a big disadvantage if the attacked alliance is a big alliance.
I am guessing you missed a word or 2, So I am not sure what you ment here.
What are you going to do against that?
Against what?

by Keinutnai Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:40 pm

seaborgium wrote:
Keinutnai wrote:Do I understand right the following:

After certain amount of farm hits (within what timeframe?)
alliance A can build a superweapon that will cost 1.5 days of income and uu production.
timeframe I am not sure, I was thinking 3 days, but then that would be kinda short notice.So I don't know what timeframe to use
They release it on alliance B, then alliance B suffers 25% income and up penalty until they pay 1.5 days of their own alliance production? Or do they have to pay as much as alliance A paid?
It is based on allinace B production
Other questions I got:
How do you prevent alliances from lowering their costs by letting their members leave the alliance, or go on vacation prior to building the superweapon?
You can't. Its just not vesable, the only way would be what the avg production over the last 7 days or something
I am afraid this needs to be reworked for obvious reasons.
If cost paid will be used as basis on the damage the weapon does, then it would be more reaonable I believe.

how do you prevent defending alliances to have their members prevent damage by leaving the alliance, or decreasing the repayment cost by leaving or vacating themselves?
You can't. Once its been release it affects the players
So what happense if alliance B got hit by it and their members leave the alliance? Do they still suffer the damage and who is going to repay the damage of considerable playerbase leaves alliance?

If alliance B has to pay as much as alliance A to defeat the superweapon, then if the attacked alliance is a small alliance, it will be put at a big disadvantage.
Alliance B pays 1.5 times THEIR production
Whose production? alliance B or alliance A production?

If alliance B has to pay 1.5 days of production then the attacked alliance will be at a big disadvantage if the attacked alliance is a big alliance.
I am guessing you missed a word or 2, So I am not sure what you ment here.
What are you going to do against that?
Against what?

Let me rephrase
small alliance A launches superweapon paying 1.5 days of their production, lets say its 200 billion kuwal in total.
Then alliance B has to stop it by paying 1.5 days of their production, let's say its 2 trillion kuwal in total.
It will be unreasonable to have an update where a big alliance is forced to pay 2 trillion to counter a superweapon that cost only 200 billion.
This update has serious flaws at this point.

by seaborgium Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:47 pm

Keinutnai wrote:
seaborgium wrote:
Keinutnai wrote:Do I understand right the following:

After certain amount of farm hits (within what timeframe?)
alliance A can build a superweapon that will cost 1.5 days of income and uu production.
timeframe I am not sure, I was thinking 3 days, but then that would be kinda short notice.So I don't know what timeframe to use
They release it on alliance B, then alliance B suffers 25% income and up penalty until they pay 1.5 days of their own alliance production? Or do they have to pay as much as alliance A paid?
It is based on allinace B production
Other questions I got:
How do you prevent alliances from lowering their costs by letting their members leave the alliance, or go on vacation prior to building the superweapon?
You can't. Its just not vesable, the only way would be what the avg production over the last 7 days or something
I am afraid this needs to be reworked for obvious reasons.
If cost paid will be used as basis on the damage the weapon does, then it would be more reaonable I believe.
The cost has nothing to do with the damage it does. The damage is just 25% reduction in kuwal and UU.

how do you prevent defending alliances to have their members prevent damage by leaving the alliance, or decreasing the repayment cost by leaving or vacating themselves?
You can't. Once its been release it affects the players
So what happense if alliance B got hit by it and their members leave the alliance? Do they still suffer the damage and who is going to repay the damage of considerable playerbase leaves alliance?
I said before, if the weapon is deployed, and the players leave they are still affected. The allinace has to pay the price, it doesn't change just because someone left.

If alliance B has to pay as much as alliance A to defeat the superweapon, then if the attacked alliance is a small alliance, it will be put at a big disadvantage.
Alliance B pays 1.5 times THEIR production
Whose production? alliance B or alliance A production?
All cost are based on that Allinaces production. So if Allinace B is trying to destoy it then it would be 1.5 times Allinace B production.
If alliance B has to pay 1.5 days of production then the attacked alliance will be at a big disadvantage if the attacked alliance is a big alliance.
I am guessing you missed a word or 2, So I am not sure what you ment here.
What are you going to do against that?
Against what?

Let me rephrase
small alliance A launches superweapon paying 1.5 days of their production, lets say its 200 billion kuwal in total.
Then alliance B has to stop it by paying 1.5 days of their production, let's say its 2 trillion kuwal in total.
It will be unreasonable to have an update where a big alliance is forced to pay 2 trillion to counter a superweapon that cost only 200 billion.
That is the cost of being in a big allinace. You can't really think it would be fair for the small Alliance A to pay 200b to build it and Large Allinace B to pay 200b which is gotten in 12 hours to get rid of it do you?
This update has serious flaws at this point.

by Keinutnai Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:09 pm

seaborgium wrote:
Keinutnai wrote:
seaborgium wrote:
Keinutnai wrote:Do I understand right the following:

After certain amount of farm hits (within what timeframe?)
alliance A can build a superweapon that will cost 1.5 days of income and uu production.
timeframe I am not sure, I was thinking 3 days, but then that would be kinda short notice.So I don't know what timeframe to use
They release it on alliance B, then alliance B suffers 25% income and up penalty until they pay 1.5 days of their own alliance production? Or do they have to pay as much as alliance A paid?
It is based on allinace B production
Other questions I got:
How do you prevent alliances from lowering their costs by letting their members leave the alliance, or go on vacation prior to building the superweapon?
You can't. Its just not vesable, the only way would be what the avg production over the last 7 days or something
I am afraid this needs to be reworked for obvious reasons.
If cost paid will be used as basis on the damage the weapon does, then it would be more reaonable I believe.
The cost has nothing to do with the damage it does. The damage is just 25% reduction in kuwal and UU.

how do you prevent defending alliances to have their members prevent damage by leaving the alliance, or decreasing the repayment cost by leaving or vacating themselves?
You can't. Once its been release it affects the players
So what happense if alliance B got hit by it and their members leave the alliance? Do they still suffer the damage and who is going to repay the damage of considerable playerbase leaves alliance?
I said before, if the weapon is deployed, and the players leave they are still affected. The allinace has to pay the price, it doesn't change just because someone left.

If alliance B has to pay as much as alliance A to defeat the superweapon, then if the attacked alliance is a small alliance, it will be put at a big disadvantage.
Alliance B pays 1.5 times THEIR production
Whose production? alliance B or alliance A production?
All cost are based on that Allinaces production. So if Allinace B is trying to destoy it then it would be 1.5 times Allinace B production.
If alliance B has to pay 1.5 days of production then the attacked alliance will be at a big disadvantage if the attacked alliance is a big alliance.
I am guessing you missed a word or 2, So I am not sure what you ment here.
What are you going to do against that?
Against what?

Let me rephrase
small alliance A launches superweapon paying 1.5 days of their production, lets say its 200 billion kuwal in total.
Then alliance B has to stop it by paying 1.5 days of their production, let's say its 2 trillion kuwal in total.
It will be unreasonable to have an update where a big alliance is forced to pay 2 trillion to counter a superweapon that cost only 200 billion.
That is the cost of being in a big allinace. You can't really think it would be fair for the small Alliance A to pay 200b to build it and Large Allinace B to pay 200b which is gotten in 12 hours to get rid of it do you?
This update has serious flaws at this point.

Let me continue to the obvious thing people are going to do:
Any person will create an alliance and deploy his superweapon against some other alliance. Let's imagine a small player farm some alliance 250 times, to create the superweapon for meager 20 billion kuwal, and the attacked alliance will have a drop in production by about 300 billion a day until they pay 1.2 trillion kuwal to defeat the superweapon.

I really don't know why you didnt think about this obvious thing people will do.

This wouldn't be about the disadvantage of having a big alliance, it would be about the disadvantage of having a poor admin who cannot foresee how people will abuse it.

by seaborgium Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:18 pm

to fix your 1 man allinace thing you just mentioned. Then it might be time for Admin to put some requirements for alliances, as other games have started to do.
Or we just limit the SW to an allinace of 5+

This wouldn't be about the disadvantage of having a big alliance, it would be about the disadvantage of having a poor admin who cannot foresee how people will abuse it.

Hes your brother. Mind you he hasn't posted here.
Very limited number of players are putting out ideas.
I have been able to give answers to most questions proposed but not everything single "IF" can be covered with out help from someone such as Admin.

So instead of just posting issues why don't you try posting way to fix it.

by mental Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:48 pm

Seems a good idea in essence to me, Gives a good reason to be in an alliance and extra options for warring, Sure there's a few kinks to work out but I like the idea of the cost being relative to the size of your alliance incomes.

There's not many ideas like this were it's a level playing ground for all, Good work hope it happens.

by Admin Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:52 pm

I cannot add anything to this discussion atm, I do read the input however

by seaborgium Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:00 pm

Why can't you?
tbh I think we have most things worked out. Or the ground work for them.
The biggest issue is the 1 man allinace thing kenzu mentioned. With out information from you thats not something we can over come

by Nomad Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:17 am

Hate to say it but I agree with the bits of Kenzu's post you quoted. The idea is no where near balanced and extremely exploitable. I love the part about having a short sighted Admin LOL That is awesome considering the past few days.

At any rate, I can see this abused by people who can get around alliance restrictions. I mean 3 or 4 accounts, maybe even 5, could peel off an alliance and start their own(think about the last few days when you consider this). Since they are going to get hammered daily anyway they will not bother to increase production nor size. All they are there for is to send the super weapon against alliance X at every opportunity. They won't even bother defending from the SW released at them as it lowers their own production which in turns lowers their own cost for the next SW.

I no longer hold out for any of the past promised updates. After 2 yrs they are just hollow promises. Maybe when alliance requirements come out yes, but as I said I can still see some smart people with weak accounts abusing the SW just to piss off someone else for Sh!ts and giggles. Knowing they never intend to play properly, just enjoying making someone elses gameplay miserable. And Yes I would have a problem with someone paying 50 bill to do damage to me what it cost me 500 bill to stop it, or to return fire of the same.

by seaborgium Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:20 am

It wouldn't lower the cost of the next SW. It would go based on the normal production.

by Nomad Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:23 am

Still, 4 or 5 accounts in an alliance who never build, just trade their goods on GM and attack alliance X with SW's?

Think about the last few days.

Now, make it useable in alliance wars where both sides agree, and you negate all that.

by Sponsored content

War system/massive weapon

War system/massive weapon

Re: War system/massive weapon

Re: War system/massive weapon

Re: War system/massive weapon

Re: War system/massive weapon

Re: War system/massive weapon

Re: War system/massive weapon

Re: War system/massive weapon

Re: War system/massive weapon

Re: War system/massive weapon

Re: War system/massive weapon

Re: War system/massive weapon

Re: War system/massive weapon

Re: War system/massive weapon

Re: War system/massive weapon

Re: War system/massive weapon

Re: War system/massive weapon

Re: War system/massive weapon

Re: War system/massive weapon

Re: War system/massive weapon

Re: War system/massive weapon

Re: War system/massive weapon

Re: War system/massive weapon