Forum: empire-en
Board: [584] Players ask Players
Topic: [74605] troop support
[-74605]
joshua-26112002 [None]
:: Jan. 25, 2012, 6:27 p.m.
why is it not possible to send support troops, between alliances who have a pact . The reason of a pact, is to help each other. now have supper alliances as the supremacy of the smaller alliances. if this will be maked possible, the smaller alliances are more likely to be unchallenged against the larger alliances. and a balance will be created. and everyone will get a chance to grow.
best regards 8)
best regards 8)
[1354316]
Andrea50 [None]
:: Jan. 25, 2012, 6:29 p.m.
pact just mean you cannot attack them and you can still attack people who attack them but you cannot send men to them. only you'r own alliance and other wise royalty only has to many pacts and we be untouchable all the big alliance would be complety untouchable
[1354317]
clayton184 (INT1) [None]
:: Jan. 25, 2012, 8:19 p.m.
such wisdom, would you consider being my advisor??
[1354318]
Kreistor [None]
:: Jan. 25, 2012, 9:24 p.m.
Because Pacts can end wiht a button click, leaving your troops away from home as they backstab you.
[1354319]
Unknown
:: Jan. 25, 2012, 11:56 p.m.
in another strategy-browser-game, it was possible to send support-troops to any castle; and the owner of the troops always had the possibility to call them home -
this I badly miss in this game...
yes I do agree that you should be able to support the members of your fellow alliances and your swordbrothers also;
if this would be implemented that the sender of the troops could call his troops back (but still leaving him the option to actually donate his troops to the recipient), the issue of not being able to get your troops back if the player who received them doesn't want to send them back for any reason (or can't because he turned inactive) would be remedied; and people would be less reluctant in sending support troops generally.
this I badly miss in this game...
yes I do agree that you should be able to support the members of your fellow alliances and your swordbrothers also;
if this would be implemented that the sender of the troops could call his troops back (but still leaving him the option to actually donate his troops to the recipient), the issue of not being able to get your troops back if the player who received them doesn't want to send them back for any reason (or can't because he turned inactive) would be remedied; and people would be less reluctant in sending support troops generally.
[1354320]
ShadowHorn [None]
:: Jan. 26, 2012, 1:17 a.m.
pact just mean you cannot attack them and you can still attack people who attack them but you cannot send men to them. only you'r own alliance and other wise royalty only has to many pacts and we be untouchable all the big alliance would be complety untouchable
what is the difference between a NAP and a Pact, then?
[1354321]
Andrea50 [None]
:: Jan. 26, 2012, 5:38 a.m.
you can still attack people with a non agression pact but not a pact nap is only a indication
[1354322]
flashstriker [None]
:: Jan. 26, 2012, 6:37 p.m.
this would be a good idea as weak allinces like mine make pacts with every allince they can see and we are still going so we could get surport from the strong allinces in pacts with mine
[1354324]
scottyboyct10 [None]
:: Jan. 26, 2012, 10:36 p.m.
That is why alliances have member limits. The hint is the word limit. If you can send troops to other alliances then this effectively creates unlimited powered super alliances who can gang together to work as one.
that doesnt sound very fair to me.
that doesnt sound very fair to me.
[1354325]
isaac 152 [None]
:: Jan. 27, 2012, 2:55 a.m.
ya i agree with scottyboyct10 you should only be able to send troops to your alliance. anyway you should always depend on yourself not other people;)
from: world 1
player: isaac 15
from: world 1
player: isaac 15
[1354326]
joshua-26112002 [None]
:: Jan. 27, 2012, 6:33 p.m.
ya i agree with scottyboyct10 you should only be able to send troops to your alliance. anyway you should always depend on yourself not other people;)
from: world 1
player: isaac 15
so you think that it is fairplay, if one allience that have 25 members that are at level 39 attacking alliences that have 10 members and sometimes only two or tree players have level 39.
I was in that situation . i have my own allience on world1 , members 11 but at that time only 2 of us have level 39.
After worked verry hard to get 2000+ honor points. one allience with 25 members all level 39 decieded that it was time to get easy points of honor and they attackt me 14 attacks in 15 minutes time . i was warned 2 hours in front. so you think time enough to get support troops ....Wrong the only member in my allience that have troops that are strong enough was 3 hours away but i have 15 level 39 players arround my that are my friends en are in alliences that i have a pact with and they wanted to help with support troops but no they cant. More than stupid.
i lost 800 honor points and the " Big Alience did win a lot of honor points" FAIRPLAY NO NO NO they only getting bigger because they dont attack alliences that are even in strenght for that they are to scared to do so.
That is the reason that it must be possible to send support troops to al of your friends .
THAT WIL BE FAIRPLAY
[1354327]
isaac 152 [None]
:: Jan. 27, 2012, 6:49 p.m.
that is true but if we can do that then might aswell be able to have as many alinces as you want and you dont have to pay rubies
[1354328]
joshua-26112002 [None]
:: Jan. 27, 2012, 7:49 p.m.
scottyboyct10 wrote: »That is why alliances have member limits. The hint is the word limit. If you can send troops to other alliances then this effectively creates unlimited powered super alliances who can gang together to work as one.
that doesnt sound very fair to me.
thier is only a limit for alliences that can not affort that kind of ruby's and it cost a big piece out of your walleth
[1354329]
joshua-26112002 [None]
:: Jan. 27, 2012, 8:22 p.m.
that is true but if we can do that then might aswell be able to have as many alinces as you want and you dont have to pay rubies
look it is verry simple ,now the alliences with big bucks are the trongest and thats not fair . It is a free game ?????
but i have alreddy have to spend 250 euro just to be able to still excist. you can do it without ruby if your not playing . by that i mean attacking other players and have 1500 attackers and 2400 defenders in your casstle
[1354334]
Unknown
:: Jan. 29, 2012, 12:52 p.m.
that is true but if we can do that then might aswell be able to have as many alinces as you want and you dont have to pay rubies
sending support troops is not the only feature of being part of an alliance - you have the chat, you have all the bonuses for the alliance, your alliance is ranked, etc.
Played another MMOPG-strategy game where you were able to support *every* town/castle on the map - worked perfectly, and was a lot of fun.
Would the big alliances become even more powerful if you could support players not being part of your alliance? IMHO, it would be the other way around: as it is now, the big alliances have a tremendous advantage cos they are able to get support from more people than the smaller alliances can. The effect would be this: the ones who have a lot a friends nearby would be able to get a lot of support, so this would be an advantage for active players.
I don't feel that it's justified to be afraid of the "too big" alliances it would create: think about the fact that you could get support easier, and that you could send support as well if sbdy near you would need it.
[1354335]
Kreistor [None]
:: Jan. 29, 2012, 4:08 p.m.
joshua-26112002 wrote: »After worked verry hard to get 2000+ honor points. one allience with 25 members all level 39 decieded that it was time to get easy points of honor and they attackt me 14 attacks in 15 minutes time
[snip]
THAT WIL BE FAIRPLAY
You played the honor game. You made yourself a target.
After attacking countless people to get "2000 honor", you whine that you are attacked in turn? Yes, it is absolutely fair. I bet there's a number of your victims saying that it was pure Justice.
My alliance has shown what will happen when a gang attack like this is faced down by massive support. Between the last two updates, there was a bug that caused all horse-borne armies to be revealed the moment they were sent, so we had 10 hours warning when 4 of our enemies sent 500+ armies at our newest member's brand new outpost.
I poured in 30000 in resources, and he Ruby-built from 25 on the walls to 170. Everyone wihtin 10 hours range dropped in troops, and in the end we had 3250 defenders. Nothing got through.
All attacks on our server stopped.
It was stupid to attack anyone in a powerful alliance. You lose a lot more for a failed attack than you gain for a Victory, so attacking was a losing option. All that happened was bottom-feeding, where powerful alliances hit close, nearby, low-level enemies to limit the possibility of major losses.
So, gang, no, we have seen the results of massive Support: it shuts down the server. We know now what the results are, and we're not interested.
[1354400]
BigQd2 [None]
:: Feb. 26, 2012, 4:46 a.m.
I think you are all missing the big picture. GGs doesn't care about fair play, it's about the dollar. If pacts were able to share troops, who would spend the money to increase the size of their alliances, when all they need to do is add more pacts? If this weren't true, the cost of two more alliance slots wouldn't more than double every time. The game is designed to get you to spend your money.
[1356316]
royl [None]
:: April 29, 2012, 10:07 p.m.
hi all valid points both sides,
but i do think that their needs to be more functionality between alliances in pacts, maybe as suggested before in a thread, a chat feature to facilitate some better game play?
but i do think that their needs to be more functionality between alliances in pacts, maybe as suggested before in a thread, a chat feature to facilitate some better game play?
[1356317]
Unknown
:: April 29, 2012, 10:17 p.m.
member limits are stupid, you should be able to get a lot of members,or even a new system:
Supreme Commander, leaders can do whatever leaders still do, but have many alliances that the Supreme Commander can control also, and appoint new leaders if he needs to
^
leaders
^ ^
generals general
^ ^ ^ ^
sargeants
^ ^
members
Supreme Commander, leaders can do whatever leaders still do, but have many alliances that the Supreme Commander can control also, and appoint new leaders if he needs to
^
leaders
^ ^
generals general
^ ^ ^ ^
sargeants
^ ^
members
[1360018]
bmfuxsr [None]
:: June 8, 2012, 11:28 p.m.
If a member of your alliance loans troops to you through "support". Can you use those troops in attacking other castles or just in defending you own??????