Kastor (Old Account) Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 So....if you know anything about me, I cant hold onto money. So I was thinking, what about a warchest feature? Its like an alliance bank, but for your nation, you can put money in and take it out as you please. However, to make it so people dont just store bunches of resources and stuff in there. It can be raided for up to 30% of your resources, and can take refined resources. Thoughts? 2 Quote "That ain't Cologne, that's the smell of success." 17:00 <•Sheepy> I don't want you to leave the game 19:20 <•Pubstomber>: Man, I really wish Rose had allied BoC a couple months ago when we had the chance instead of picking Vanguard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muhammad Ali Bas Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 uhh.. whats the point of it... its like the same thing as holding on to money, and if raided you still lose money. 1 Quote The Federal Republic of India Muhammad Ali Bas's Presidency Office. "I Bow Thee, Mother." " Regional Power of Asia Become a Military ally of India today! Notify the president of India for more information. Internal and External Embassy of India http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/5195-indian-embassy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurdanak Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 (edited) So....if you know anything about me, I cant hold onto money.From what I remember, it's quite the contrary - you can't keep your hands off of it. But anyways, why exactly would this be necessary? Why can't one just manually save a certain amount of money/resources for war? If someone has problems saving money, why would they store it in their "warchest" instead of just spending it like they did before? Edited April 26, 2015 by Kurdanak 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kastor (Old Account) Posted April 26, 2015 Author Share Posted April 26, 2015 From what I remember, it's quite the contrary - you can't keep your hands off of it. <_<But anyways, why exactly would this be necessary? Why can't one just manually save a certain amount of money/resources for war? If someone has problems saving money, why would they store it in their "warchest" instead of just spending it like they did before? There is no saying if they will/won't. But its easier to store resources for war, to hide from spy attacks. To know what you can sell and what you can't sell. It would make it easier for a nation. Quote "That ain't Cologne, that's the smell of success." 17:00 <•Sheepy> I don't want you to leave the game 19:20 <•Pubstomber>: Man, I really wish Rose had allied BoC a couple months ago when we had the chance instead of picking Vanguard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kastor (Old Account) Posted April 26, 2015 Author Share Posted April 26, 2015 uhh.. whats the point of it... its like the same thing as holding on to money, and if raided you still lose money. My original idea was to make them non-raidable. But I dont want to raid someone and have them throw it all in their warchest. Quote "That ain't Cologne, that's the smell of success." 17:00 <•Sheepy> I don't want you to leave the game 19:20 <•Pubstomber>: Man, I really wish Rose had allied BoC a couple months ago when we had the chance instead of picking Vanguard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pfeiffer Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 This is dumb. Quote ☾☆ Chairman Emeritus of Mensa HQ ☾☆ "It's not about the actual fish, themselves. Fish are not important in this context. It's about fish-ing, the act of fishing itself." -Jack O'Neill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwemyrn Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 I see it as rebuilding funds for after you get wrecked in a war, that being said, you'd need to specify how much is taken after said wreckage. Quote -removed by thor- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pfeiffer Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 If the money isn't treated any differently for the player, meaning you can just put it in and take it out willy nilly, it shouldn't be treated any differently during war time. Which defeats the entire purpose. 1 Quote ☾☆ Chairman Emeritus of Mensa HQ ☾☆ "It's not about the actual fish, themselves. Fish are not important in this context. It's about fish-ing, the act of fishing itself." -Jack O'Neill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magicboyd25 Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 Lol you want a warchest, then learn to save and not be stupid with your money Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur James Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 (edited) we already have the alliance bank (temporary disable by sheepy for bugs inspection), or raid the resources from a nation after 6th immerse triumph.. the only difference is the warchest don't have the minimum amount of protected money. Edited April 26, 2015 by Arthur James Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwemyrn Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 Lol you want a warchest, then learn to save and not be stupid with your money He could just steal it. he is good at that. Quote -removed by thor- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magicboyd25 Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 He could just steal it. he is good at that. It still wouldn't last long Cause he would be rolled soon after. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwynn Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 "Help me protect myself from being stupid, but not really since I can put money in and take it out when I want." No. Quote He's right, I'm such a stinker. Play my exceptional game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.