Montgomery

Agreed, I had proposed something similar earlier to create alliance "coalitions;" but I do support your suggestion as well.

I can agree with you on that. This was simply a suggestion.

You just made my point: "Why should we be placed at a disadvantage just because someone thinks it is okay to cheat?" We should do all that we can to fight against exploiting and ban cheaters from the game, but WE should not be placed at a disadvantage because of their refusal to follow the rules.

Nation Name: Zionus Nation Link: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=10846

Fair enough. An exponential increase in exploiting is a concern, but it should not hold us back from advancing ourselves. I agree with your recent post to keep track of cheaters and permanently ban them through tracking multiple nations on one IP - We should look for innovative ways, such as your original suggestion, to keep exploiting to a minimal rate while evolving the game.

154 nations out of over 2,000 is by nature a minority number. I do agree that it should be handled but I see no reason to limit this game due to cheaters. If we choose to limit this game due to a few cheating players, then the future of PAW is minimal and other players will soon lose interest and will leave the game. The game needs to constantly evolve, adding improvements and giving players, nations, and alliances more capabilities and abilities to govern themselves and their nations.

I see what your concern is, but why must we limit the capabilities of this game due to a small number of people who do not respect the rules?

I'm not sure I can agree with this. I understand that multies are a significant issue and concern, but limiting the access of all nations (including those of us who actually obey and follow the rules) to trade is not something I can support. Many nations depend on trade for valuable resources that they cannot or do not possess the financial and resource means to produce; limiting their ability to engage in trade based on the illegal actions of a few rulebreakers is not necessarily the best course of action.

All individual nations would still retain their own military forces, they would only donate to an alliance coalition to be at the command of the heads and leadership of the alliance if they wished to do so or if membership in the alliance required it.

Yes, that was my original thought. It would be a way to ensure that alliances have the ability to create international coalitions of military forces donated by individual members instead of relying upon individual military forces for all alliance conflicts.

It would be helpful to give alliances the option to form a "coalition" of military forces donated by members of the alliance to fight wars on behalf of the alliance and intervene when member nations are attacked. Alliances should also have the ability to form standing military forces to intervene when necessary, all formed by donations from supportive members who are willing to give a portion of their military up to the alliance. Also, it would make sense to have a formal voting system to allow all member nations of an alliance to vote upon declarations of war, truces, and leadership - Instead of having to use a separate forum.