allilee

Well this thread is unnecessary ? Trying to get a treasure you have to WIN the war and if he got asked to peace out what difference does it make?

It may also change market prices as well - creating more turbulence there Bit like with oil prices in real life, went really high, then fell, then rose again etc If alliances could do embargoes for all alliance members then it would effect their own members as well So people aren't just going to go mad and do loads of embargoes as it effects them as well

Im just an alliance member - no gov status or leader whatever I would like to see the update as it makes things easier and would make an embargo more 'worth it' - it would add more politics to the game where there is the possibility that in wars, some alliances may become so stretched that they have to accept peace etc, bringing more tactics as well etc. I also think it adds a greater effect to the embargo tool

I think it's worth trying People like the idea, and are always saying that new stuff should be added to keep the game interesting It would also add another level of politics to the game as well Think it's worth a try

Didn't know if there was a way to do this already or if it has already been discussed but: Whether an alliance has the function to embargo another alliance, meaning that all the members from each alliance are therefore automatically embargoed from each other? Like it would be in real life with countries? So if t$ embargoed Mensa, then no members from either t$ or Mensa could trade with the members if the other alliance. Thoughts...? From what I have heard, people like it Sheepy.... Could make the market a bit more volatile, adding more weight to the embargo feature and possibly making the market economics of the game more important during wars/rebuild/peace etc

Didn't know if there was a way to do this already or if it has already been discussed but: Whether an alliance has the function to embargo another alliance, meaning that all the members from each alliance are therefore automatically embargoed from each other? Like it would be in real life with countries? So if t$ embargoed Mensa, then no members from either t$ or Mensa could trade with the members if the other alliance. Thoughts...? I HAVE CREATED A NEW THREAD IN THE GAME SUGGESTIONS AREA

Hi everyone - after speaking with Sheepy I think its most appropriate to make this post in this sub forum section: I have recently been accepted to take part in a unique and challenging experience. I have been chosen as a participant on International Citizen Service. International Citizen Service (ICS) is an opportunity for volunteers, like me, to help some of the poorest people in the world and learn valuable new skills at the same time. It’s a programme that brings young people from different countries together to fight poverty. In many poorer countries young people make up the majority of the population. This programme is specifically designed to get young people from the UK and my host country together to tackle poverty and its causes. As young people, we are the best placed to do this and change the world for the future. Moreover, I will have the opportunity to increase my understanding and experience of the world and develop important skills such as global and cultural awareness team-working, leadership, communication and decision-making. I have been selected to go to Ghana with VSO for three months starting in June. During this time I will be living with a local family in the West Akim District of the Eastern Region and will be involved in a community work project along with a counterpart from Ghana. We will be working on projects to help improve livelihoods via increasing their incomes through agriculture and helping set up more markets for them to trade in whilst also helping out with low enrolment in schools, high school dropout rates and youth unemployment. As part of my commitment to the programme I have pledged to raise £800. The money raised goes directly on projects that we work on in Ghana, with all my expenses (such as travel, accommodation, food and medicine) being paid for by the UK government. To raise this sum, I am undertaking a variety of fundraising activities including, cake sales and tennis coaching. If you would like to make a donation towards my fundraising efforts for this project I would be very grateful. If you would like to make a difference and donate then you can make a donation on my Justgiving page at https://www.justgiving.com/Alex-Lee9. I will be very happy to update you with my progress on this project, and I can write an article/share my experiences once my placement has come to an end. ICS recognises the power of young people to address issues in international development and as volunteers bring about lasting and meaningful change for very poor communities. Your support would be greatly appreciated. If you would like further information regarding the program, please do not hesitate to contact me. If you know of anyone else that may be interested in donating then please pass this on! Thank you very much for reading this and I hope you can help me make a difference.

We did yes, but that is only after the war to rebuild, but we told the members to stay militarised but anyway Still doesnt stop the fact some large nations are attacking much smaller ones (in terms of city numbers)

Ok - there are still very large nations taking advantage of smaller ones though, albeit I may have over stated facts, but from the wars that have happened in my alliance it has been quite a lot of larger nations taking on smaller ones

How can they without losing their infra? Which would also mean decreasing improvements, which nations such as Arrgh haven't had to do as their infra got destroyed and so they have kept most of their improvements

Well I'm still saying that people from the same alliance as the defending nation should be able to attack the aggressor if they have the same amount of cities or less That doesn't change too much

Yet again you miss the point - the amount of infra you would have to drop would be phenomenal - the game shouldn't work like that The guy with more cities and repair more of his military each day, and a nation with 8 cities against a 12 would never get an immense triumph

You said earlier that people can defend themselves Explain to me how a nation with 8 cities can defend themselves against a nation with 12 cities? Yes Rahl, 3 alliance members can attack back - but only those in the war range, who also have 8 cities - against a nation with 12, would still lose even with max military Lets say as well, if I could actually attack you (if I had much lower infra) then how would be able to defend yourself?

You say about a choice - even if nations with 8 cities were fully militarised they wouldnt be to defend themselves against a nation with 12 - so your point is meaningless Well thats why I suggested about just adding something to game where - lets say if a nation in my alliance with 9 cities got attacked by someone with 15 cities then anyone in the alliance with 15 cities or less can attack the aggressor if that makes sense? So instead of changing the formula make alliances more easier to defend their members

Most of the people moaning are from arrgh or similar alliances who raid nations that cant defend themselves from the attacks We should change something - get on and do it - and at the end of the day if it doesn't work, it doesn't work and we change it back to what it was before (if we never try to do new things then the game won't advance and for all anyone knows it could make the game much better than it already is)

Well instead of changing the formula of that many people are against it - I am for it Would it be possible to introduce something where members of alliances can attack people that have attacked their alliance members. So if someone with 12 cities attacked someone in my alliance with 8 cities then anyone in my alliance with 12 cities or less can counter that attack? A bit like if Russia attacked Uganda in real life (obviously it wouldn't happen but bear with me) then the US and UK (similar size to russia) would step in and help Uganda - they wouldn't leave it to lets say Kenya (similar size to uganda) to defend Ghana against a much larger nation (And yes I have made up the countries for this, but I feel it still makes my point) As people keep going on about how alliances should protect their members - atm we can't because of the score range formula and the unfair advantage of nations with many more cities Seem to be a lot of arrgh members and other raiders moaning about the change of formula as they could lose out And people who have been on the other side of the attacks want change to protect their members (only natural) Nobody will be happy with every change that Sheepy makes (that's life, move on)but I get the feeling from speaking to many alliances that they feel the current situation gives an unfair advantage to large nations with low infra but with still high military capacity against smaller nations who even if they were fully militarised wouldn't be able to defend themselves

That is a pointless reason - 'enough military' I'm sorry but you have 12 cities, and are attacking people with 8-10 cities It doesnt matter how much they militarise because you are always going to be on top of them It is deterring people from the game which makes pnw less attractive to some existing longer term members - shouldn't we all be encouraging a change that will help keep new members in the game?

Is the war range formula actually changing? Or could it be something like if a nation with 14 cities has such low infra (but still has all his military), that they can attack and a nation with 8 cities and so get an unfair advantage - then nations, in that same alliance of the member who got attacked, that have the same or less number of cities of the aggressor can attack them back regardless of the war range Trying to make it even - wars should be even based more on the number of cities which determines the size of the military

Good luck to you to and hopefully we can forward from this

White peace has been agreed between Roz Wei and Phoenix White peace was discussed prior to today's events and now signed for each side. All hostilities will be ceased immediately, with both parties ending and not declaring any more wars with each other. Signed for Roz Wei: Son of Heaven, Rozalia Signed for Phoenix: Allilee Luke the 13th Young

Sheepy needs to change the score soon, otherwise new people to the game will leave because of raids like arrgh

Maybe who nations can declare wars on should change to not be based on score but the number of cities instead Otherwise nations with like 12 cities could get destroyed down to 1000 score, rebuild their military and then attack other nations who only have 5 or 6 cities (raid them to try to get money to rebuild themselves) and so can't the defender doesn't have a high enough military to ever defend themselves? So it could work like nations can only declare on other nations that have the same number of cities or more? Or maybe they could declare on a nation with 1 city less than them? Try to rebalance the game a bit, because especially after big wars like this one, the smaller nations can be attacked a lot to help pay for others damages and could lead people that are new to the game to leave the game.

I posted what i wrote here in the bigger thread sheepy made

I agree - most if not all the complaints are coming from the mensa side of the war

Haha yes it does :L We have tried to get the heat taken off them in the last few days but to no avail (if thats how you spell it)