More options for allies to help each other

1. I would like it if in a team game, that when an ally leaves, their cash is distributed to their allies in some way.

2. I would like it if you could give possession of your countries to your allies (leavers could give up their land before going)-leaver's troops become the new owner's troops, if that player isn't leaving they remain their's

3. I would like it if allies could station troops in each other cities. More than one person defending (kinda like having more than one attacker) Then the orginal owner keeps it and ally troops stay there.

4. When 2+ allies attack the same city, the person with the most troops remaining gets it. (or some system of voting could be added for who you would like to be the one to have possession if your teamw in the fight)

5. I would like so box you could check to prevent backstabbing from taking empty cities you would like to keep

Good idea. I support for it

The most useful idea by far is idea 3.

Idea 5 could be easily abused because of the effect of strategies e.g. player 1 spams imp infantry, moves them into player 2's cities and gifts them to player 2, who is IF.

Idea 6 could be modified so that when an ally moves a unit into your city, in the alliance accept/decline box there could be a statement: player X wants to take over city X, and an option to accept/decline taking over the city. This would prevent one ally backstabbing you, where you could still choose to give countries to other allies.

You have a point about point 5 i'll erase it (it was being able to give allies your units, see post above the see how it could eb abused)

Yeah The only way to defend your ally atm is to have their city empty and move your own units there. But 1 and 2 you can already do, otherwise, support.

Napsáno Xenosapien, 03.09.2013 at 10:41

Yeah The only way to defend your ally atm is to have their city empty and move your own units there. But 1 and 2 you can already do, otherwise, support.

It's actually possible to defend your ally's city by attacking an enemy unit you know is going to attack the city, this is quite useful, but if all your ally's units in the city dies it switches hands to your side, which in some situations can be useful to support your ally with near the front.

Yeah I already know that but what if their units are walled around?

Number 2 wouldn't work if the receiving player had no money, and it could also be abused and people could just send each other troops. Although, it would be interesting to make an entirely new gamemode in which multiple players are the same color with the same units, and the same funds. Pr's would be necessary.

No support.

If this is implemented I will ally fag, seriously w/o allies you die. lets say you have everyone start with 10k. 2 enemies is like fighting a player with a $20,000 starting cash worth per player. twice the land twice everything. fighting against 3 people is triple the problem. I'm sorry but this is not RP.
> this could be good in pre-arranged team games, but NOT FFA, or the other type where you can select your ally. this will encourage people to ally fag more.

Napsáno Ty TJ wantanuke, 31.08.2013 at 21:44

2. I would like it if you could give possession of your countries to your allies (leavers could give up their land before going)-leaver's troops become the new owner's troops, if that player isn't leaving they remain their's

Just no, imagine a troll late joining your game and leaves the next turn but gift all his units to another player(your opponent.)

Napsáno Ty TJ wantanuke, 31.08.2013 at 21:44

1. I would like it if in a team game, that when an ally leaves, their cash is distributed to their allies in some way.

Can do it while in game. No need.

Napsáno Ty TJ wantanuke, 31.08.2013 at 21:44

2. I would like it if you could give possession of your countries to your allies (leavers could give up their land before going)-leaver's troops become the new owner's troops, if that player isn't leaving they remain their's.

No, for reason exposed by Meester.

Napsáno Ty TJ wantanuke, 31.08.2013 at 21:44

3. I would like it if allies could station troops in each other cities. More than one person defending (kinda like having more than one attacker) Then the orginal owner keeps it and ally troops stay there.

Interesting. Probably hard to code. Just aid your ally by walling and/or attacking opponent close to his cities.

Napsáno Ty TJ wantanuke, 31.08.2013 at 21:44

4. When 2+ allies attack the same city, the person with the most troops remaining gets it. (or some system of voting could be added for who you would like to be the one to have possession if your teamw in the fight)

Interesting, for now it's "first come first served". I guess.

Napsáno Ty TJ wantanuke, 31.08.2013 at 21:44

5. I would like so box you could check to prevent backstabbing from taking empty cities you would like to keep

Choose well your allies and keep 1 unit in city.

I wish to echo everything above that Columna said. However, there is 1 idea in the bunch I find good and that's number 3. You'd just have to account for how things would work out if the players' alliance ended. I would say once the alliance is downgraded to just peace, whoever was not initially in possession of the city would be removed. Units could be instantly relocated to nearest friendly city or could just be placed right outside of the city. I say nay to all the other ideas though.

Napsáno Dethpickle, 06.07.2014 at 16:33

I wish to echo everything above that Columna said. However, there is 1 idea in the bunch I find good and that's number 3. You'd just have to account for how things would work out if the players' alliance ended. I would say once the alliance is downgraded to just peace, whoever was not initially in possession of the city would be removed. Units could be instantly relocated to nearest friendly city or could just be placed right outside of the city. I say nay to all the other ideas though.

No. It's your responsibility to think about who you are allying, and whether or not they are a good ally. Placing a unit right outside of a city serves no purpose, as, they'll simply be able to attack on the next turn, unless the city is getting reinforced.

Relocation to the nearest friendly city is probably the worst idea on this thread. You're granting a player free teleportation, possibly from Moscow to Chicago, if Chicago happens to be closest? No. If a player takes a city, the player should keep the city, and shouldn't be forced to give it up through exploitable game mechanics.

You are never forced to ally. You are never forced to grant peace. You should never be forced to, after defending your ally, be expelled from their cities, after they betray you.

All of these have been proposed so far everyone forgot them.i would like more options with allies but until the opposite side (playing alone with skillz) is boosted then no.

Napsáno Kaliraa, 06.07.2014 at 17:51

Napsáno Dethpickle, 06.07.2014 at 16:33

I wish to echo everything above that Columna said. However, there is 1 idea in the bunch I find good and that's number 3. You'd just have to account for how things would work out if the players' alliance ended. I would say once the alliance is downgraded to just peace, whoever was not initially in possession of the city would be removed. Units could be instantly relocated to nearest friendly city or could just be placed right outside of the city. I say nay to all the other ideas though.

No. It's your responsibility to think about who you are allying, and whether or not they are a good ally. Placing a unit right outside of a city serves no purpose, as, they'll simply be able to attack on the next turn, unless the city is getting reinforced.

Relocation to the nearest friendly city is probably the worst idea on this thread. You're granting a player free teleportation, possibly from Moscow to Chicago, if Chicago happens to be closest? No. If a player takes a city, the player should keep the city, and shouldn't be forced to give it up through exploitable game mechanics.

You are never forced to ally. You are never forced to grant peace. You should never be forced to, after defending your ally, be expelled from their cities, after they betray you.

Oof, calm down sir. I don't like the idea that much. I was simply suggesting something. I doubt the idea'll actually be introduced so I didn't exactly put a lot of thought into it. I am sorry to upset you so with my outrageousness.

Napsáno Dethpickle, 06.07.2014 at 17:56

Napsáno Kaliraa, 06.07.2014 at 17:51

Napsáno Dethpickle, 06.07.2014 at 16:33

I wish to echo everything above that Columna said. However, there is 1 idea in the bunch I find good and that's number 3. You'd just have to account for how things would work out if the players' alliance ended. I would say once the alliance is downgraded to just peace, whoever was not initially in possession of the city would be removed. Units could be instantly relocated to nearest friendly city or could just be placed right outside of the city. I say nay to all the other ideas though.

No. It's your responsibility to think about who you are allying, and whether or not they are a good ally. Placing a unit right outside of a city serves no purpose, as, they'll simply be able to attack on the next turn, unless the city is getting reinforced.

Relocation to the nearest friendly city is probably the worst idea on this thread. You're granting a player free teleportation, possibly from Moscow to Chicago, if Chicago happens to be closest? No. If a player takes a city, the player should keep the city, and shouldn't be forced to give it up through exploitable game mechanics.

You are never forced to ally. You are never forced to grant peace. You should never be forced to, after defending your ally, be expelled from their cities, after they betray you.

Oof, calm down sir. I don't like the idea that much. I was simply suggesting something. I doubt the idea'll actually be introduced so I didn't exactly put a lot of thought into it. I am sorry to upset you so with my outrageousness.

I'll never forgive you. Watch yourself, because, next time you try to play a game, I'll be there, waiting for you. I'll teach you to attempt to introduce a new idea on a public forum, Dethpickle. Consider this your final warning!

Napsáno Kaliraa, 06.07.2014 at 17:58

Napsáno Dethpickle, 06.07.2014 at 17:56

Napsáno Kaliraa, 06.07.2014 at 17:51

Napsáno Dethpickle, 06.07.2014 at 16:33

I wish to echo everything above that Columna said. However, there is 1 idea in the bunch I find good and that's number 3. You'd just have to account for how things would work out if the players' alliance ended. I would say once the alliance is downgraded to just peace, whoever was not initially in possession of the city would be removed. Units could be instantly relocated to nearest friendly city or could just be placed right outside of the city. I say nay to all the other ideas though.

No. It's your responsibility to think about who you are allying, and whether or not they are a good ally. Placing a unit right outside of a city serves no purpose, as, they'll simply be able to attack on the next turn, unless the city is getting reinforced.

Relocation to the nearest friendly city is probably the worst idea on this thread. You're granting a player free teleportation, possibly from Moscow to Chicago, if Chicago happens to be closest? No. If a player takes a city, the player should keep the city, and shouldn't be forced to give it up through exploitable game mechanics.

You are never forced to ally. You are never forced to grant peace. You should never be forced to, after defending your ally, be expelled from their cities, after they betray you.

Oof, calm down sir. I don't like the idea that much. I was simply suggesting something. I doubt the idea'll actually be introduced so I didn't exactly put a lot of thought into it. I am sorry to upset you so with my outrageousness.

I'll never forgive you. Watch yourself, because, next time you try to play a game, I'll be there, waiting for you. I'll teach you to attempt to introduce a new idea on a public forum, Dethpickle. Consider this your final warning!

Don't bother remembering me. I must commit harakiri to preserve what little honor I have left after suggesting such a thing.

Napsáno Kaliraa, 06.07.2014 at 17:58

Napsáno Dethpickle, 06.07.2014 at 17:56

Napsáno Kaliraa, 06.07.2014 at 17:51

Napsáno Dethpickle, 06.07.2014 at 16:33

I wish to echo everything above that Columna said. However, there is 1 idea in the bunch I find good and that's number 3. You'd just have to account for how things would work out if the players' alliance ended. I would say once the alliance is downgraded to just peace, whoever was not initially in possession of the city would be removed. Units could be instantly relocated to nearest friendly city or could just be placed right outside of the city. I say nay to all the other ideas though.

No. It's your responsibility to think about who you are allying, and whether or not they are a good ally. Placing a unit right outside of a city serves no purpose, as, they'll simply be able to attack on the next turn, unless the city is getting reinforced.

Relocation to the nearest friendly city is probably the worst idea on this thread. You're granting a player free teleportation, possibly from Moscow to Chicago, if Chicago happens to be closest? No. If a player takes a city, the player should keep the city, and shouldn't be forced to give it up through exploitable game mechanics.

You are never forced to ally. You are never forced to grant peace. You should never be forced to, after defending your ally, be expelled from their cities, after they betray you.

Oof, calm down sir. I don't like the idea that much. I was simply suggesting something. I doubt the idea'll actually be introduced so I didn't exactly put a lot of thought into it. I am sorry to upset you so with my outrageousness.

I'll never forgive you. Watch yourself, because, next time you try to play a game, I'll be there, waiting for you. I'll teach you to attempt to introduce a new idea on a public forum, Dethpickle. Consider this your final warning!

i will do unspeakable dirty things to you and your leader zizou, young kaliraa, if you bother an illyrian pupp again.thats not a warning, its a promise!

I asked my friend, Columna Durruti, who joined a week after me, to tell you to stop threatening me.

Please stop these childish chauvinist threats. Behave yourselves! Consider this a warning.

Napsáno Ty TJ wantanuke, 31.08.2013 at 21:44

3. I would like it if allies could station troops in each other cities. More than one person defending (kinda like having more than one attacker) Then the orginal owner keeps it and ally troops stay there.

Interesting Idea, support. I suggested without know about it XD. here

Already suggested

Napsáno clovis1122, 10.07.2014 at 17:45

Napsáno Ty TJ wantanuke, 31.08.2013 at 21:44

3. I would like it if allies could station troops in each other cities. More than one person defending (kinda like having more than one attacker) Then the orginal owner keeps it and ally troops stay there.

Interesting Idea, support. I suggested without know about it XD. here

Already suggested
http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=9910

Napsáno clovis1122, 10.07.2014 at 17:45

Napsáno Ty TJ wantanuke, 31.08.2013 at 21:44

3. I would like it if allies could station troops in each other cities. More than one person defending (kinda like having more than one attacker) Then the orginal owner keeps it and ally troops stay there.

Interesting Idea, support. I suggested without know about it XD. here

Really i would not support this.Reason is because we already have enough ally faggots.In this way they would be more overpower and we would just sit down and watch how they are growing,Anyway this is a bomb for high ranks since low ranks will ally against high rank.And this is bad for casual games.

High ranked faggots getting mad that nubs are allying to overthrow them.

Napsáno Brandyjack, 12.07.2014 at 11:50

High ranked faggots getting mad that nubs are allying to overthrow them.

thats true, skilled player hate it, when many noobs allyfag

but you cant improve your skills and you will every be a allyfag

Rather than the argument about this leaning towards the problem of players allying everybody, there's an even more important issue that the suggestion would bring. This is especially related to the third suggestion: the ability to defend cities with your allies. I'm sure most of you are already aware that this game already promotes defensive play. For those of you that are doubting this: this is evident from the popularity and effectiveness of PD which is a defensive strategy. I don't think we should be promoting this kind of game-play any further than it already is. Thus, I'd be against this or any other kind of suggestion that would do achieve the same result.

Napsáno Ty TJ wantanuke, 31.08.2013 at 21:44

1. I would like it if in a team game, that when an ally leaves, their cash is distributed to their allies in some way.

2. I would like it if you could give possession of your countries to your allies (leavers could give up their land before going)-leaver's troops become the new owner's troops, if that player isn't leaving they remain their's

3. I would like it if allies could station troops in each other cities. More than one person defending (kinda like having more than one attacker) Then the orginal owner keeps it and ally troops stay there.

4. When 2+ allies attack the same city, the person with the most troops remaining gets it. (or some system of voting could be added for who you would like to be the one to have possession if your teamw in the fight)

5. I would like so box you could check to prevent backstabbing from taking empty cities you would like to keep

I love it (Idea 5)