Forming a coalition


#1

Sometimes 2 or more alliances fight would have against 1 powerful alliance to win but it is difficult because both the alliances cannot attack the same target at a same tick.My idea is to give the ability to form a coalition so that all can attack at the same time.

Coalitions won’t be permanent.They will be auto-disbanded when the wars end.If the enemy is marked blue by the coalition leader[chosen from the leaders of both the alliance],the war will end and the coalition gets disbanded or if everyone loses their army and get conquered , the coalition will get disbanded.

The leader of 1 alliance should choose an enemy who is the enemy of the other alliances.Making a sub using coalitions should be against rules.

  • good idea
  • bad idea [ why? ]

0 voters


#2

This is an absolute flat out no, I’m sorry. This will just encourage the use of multiple subs, like, as many as possible. The sub scourge is already bad enough IN some worlds, and this will only make the game numbers based, not skill based.


#3

Same reason Zealot gave. This will encourage subs


#4

its a bad idea because of how easy it is to abuse. if i were to spam all my BD friends to come play and they make say two teams of 20. Even if not boosting, playing against 40 active ppl + the team im in so say 50 would be impossible for the enemy. If they were call friends to help, it would just be down to who have played the longest, and got the most friends taking all skill out of the game rly.


#5

Also, you can discuss diplo and relations in-game and outside of it. If two teams really want to band together to kill another one, they’ll have to coordinate either with PM’s (not that great) or with an outside tool like Skype or Discord.

This idea has the right mindset towards competition :slight_smile: , it just is too easy to be abused :frowning2:


#6

sadly gotta give carter a like on that cuz it will be easily abused but i see potential that if this is tweaked a bit to make it not so easily manipulated hopefully alex will finally listen to an idea on this forum


#7

We try to limit sub use as we can. This would be ripe for abuse as many others have stated. Voted No


#8

Big fat NO. Because of the above mentioned reasons.


#9

Honestly, it’s a good idea. The issue is (as all have stated) that it’s abusable. People would simply use this so they could coordinate with 20-30 people instead of having the limit they are supposed to. Coalitions have HUGE advantages already however. It (usually) means you can attack from 2 different sides to split the team you’re fighting against up on multiple fronts.