Tiberius

I mean my point was it would be better as a percentage rather than a solid cap. No, the balance regards to large alliance membership is everyone is free to recruit new people, even encouraged to do so to help grow the game. It would be unbalancing if only a select few alliances were allowed to recruit players. Smaller alliances in most cases either A. Purposely stay small or B. Suck at recruitment (for a myriad of reasons).

The alternative was signing with a majority of fascist losers. Not a difficult choice.

Can we stick to the topic. CN and your own P&W political bias has no bearing on this suggestion.

RIP Goons.

So we go the 20 Nation cap route. Alliances split at war time to groups of 20, now everyone has the buff. Nothing is improved. The larger alliance if anything gets an advantage because they are able to beige cycle.

The mistake you make is thinking & is a word and not a symbol. Fool.

It has been a big precedent that the mechanics of the game should allow players who are the underdog/outnumbered etc can fight back in wars. Things such as beige and baseball allow this to happen.

Okay seeing as the post you quoted was somehow invisible to you. I'll give an example: Meerkat Empire has 120 Nations. They are planning to go to war with Lion Kingdom who has 20 Nations. Meerkat Empire splits into 6 alliances of 20 Nations so that all 120 Nations will get the bonus.

In my opinion if we are going to cap the number of players that can be given it then it needs to be a percentage and not a hard figure. With a 20 player cap I am already envisioning larger alliances splitting into 20man AAs for war and at that point it makes the cap meaningless.

Still yet to see any evidence that baseball is not balanced and not equal. Quit trying to score political points.

The system we have now, everyone has developed with. All strategy was devised using the current war system. To make all wars end with beige is going to benefit those with a bigger rebuy the most. Hence it is adding an imbalance to the game and gives one group an advantage over the other. It also nullifies the strategy of up declaring. The suggestion in isolation is a fair one, however it does not take into account the imbalances it will create in the gameplay/meta. Thus I can not support it.

The irony is strong with this one.

I'm gonna build city 21 and make Scarfalot pay for it.

Wow, they let you out too huh?

Can you link your game suggestion for it to be removed please.