So, I have another idea/question.

Is it possible to put several armies within the same alliance in ONE city? Since we ARE allies, why can't we support each other but being able to land in the same city?
It could add another difficulty level to the game as well as a lot MORE strategies.
And it can also help armies recover and grow stronger as well?

Any thoughts?

Wow that idea hasn't popped for a few years.

lol i'm guessing it was turned down???

you'd have to have an occupy vs attack button, sometimes I like to attack my own alliance members to keep them on their toes ;)

lol don't you mean CONFUSE them? you can already choose what army to attack. But the original owner obv gets to own the city :)

This was mentioned a long time ago and brought up about 8 times since then. I looked at it on Alpha and currently it's not possible. It brought up 2 other ideas:

1. Split the city into quadrants and allow multiple occupations (i.e. if you hold all four you get all city income, if you hold 2 and ally holds 2 you get...you get the picture). This would take some work, but it's feasible. Before I do this I want to finish multiple attack types though.

2. Adding a priority to armies (i.e. auto-Defend, auto-Attack, Idle, etc.). Basically, allow an ally to set an army outside your city and then once another army shows up...If it's set to defend the city...it will. If you send an army at an enemy city and it is outside...It attacks. If it wins it occupies.

...The good thing is that both ideas are doable and will be done in some form.

the first one... meh, the second one, now that sounds awesome Prophet

the first one... meh, the second one, now that sounds awesome Prophet

The first one feeds into a much bigger picture of the game. There has to be a lot more added before we get to that point...but I think we'll get there.

The second one...Not to far off with that one.

ooooo how soon how sooooon??

On the 2 ideas...

1. What if the whole alliance should park in a city? I think there has to be a limit to troop size if occupied by more than one person.

2. GREAT IDEA!! This be like auto-pilot?

On the 2 ideas...

1. What if the whole alliance should park in a city? I think there has to be a limit to troop size if occupied by more than one person.

2. GREAT IDEA!! This be like auto-pilot?

1. A quadrant...Not some 20 slices of a city. The idea will make a lot more sense when there are more features in the game. This idea may even have bonuses for holding a full city (which adds another levels of strategy for enemies...bonus blockers).

2. Very much like auto-pilot. I noticed last round that I lost so many armies due to the parking until user action. That's counter-productive to the game. People should be able to properly define the use of an army and not need to be online 4-5 hours later to make sure it carries out it's task.

1. A quadrant...Not some 20 slices of a city. The idea will make a lot more sense when there are more features in the game. This idea may even have bonuses for holding a full city (which adds another levels of strategy for enemies...bonus blockers).

2. Very much like auto-pilot. I noticed last round that I lost so many armies due to the parking until user action. That's counter-productive to the game. People should be able to properly define the use of an army and not need to be online 4-5 hours later to make sure it carries out it's task.

very, very right....

as more a user could arrange before he would log off and be sure that it would happen until he comes back as more you make us player addicted

2. Very much like auto-pilot. I noticed last round that I lost so many armies due to the parking until user action. That's counter-productive to the game. People should be able to properly define the use of an army and not need to be online 4-5 hours later to make sure it carries out it's task.

Wow that would be a game changer. Would remove the strategy of planning your armies so they do not land after you are asleep or so forth. Not sure I am in favor, but could be interesting. Attacking that is, defending is a good idea. Be nice to kill all the armies in and around a city in one go.

hey Prophet, are you testing out SkyNet? Cuz that'd be pretty dangerous

hey Prophet, are you testing out SkyNet? Cuz that'd be pretty dangerous

Yeah i asked it "why is a math book so sad"?

...hopefully it gets the answer right.

Wow that would be a game changer. Would remove the strategy of planning your armies so they do not land after you are asleep or so forth. Not sure I am in favor, but could be interesting. Attacking that is, defending is a good idea. Be nice to kill all the armies in and around a city in one go.

Although this autopilot idea is only in it's infancy so it's difficult to fully weigh up the impact, at this point I think I agree with Peon here. Auto defend would be great and would really shake up the cowards who exclusively wait for players to be offline. However, auto-attack could spoil what I personally think is the crux of the game's strategic element. Sure, I've lost armies due to not paying attention/being too drunk/not being organised, but I've killed plenty of enemy armies too. This, for me anyway, adds to the fun of the game, and without which I suspect would remove some of the skill required too.

Anyway, if this is implemented in any of the forms discussed then it will certainly be interesting that's for sure.

if one army heading to a city is set to auto-attack a city, and an army is outside the city waiting to defend, does the tie go to the defender? attacker?

I don't know I feel like it just makes the game more automatic, and takes the fun out of waiting for your enemy to arrive and hoping to click attack the army outside before they attack the city.

if one army heading to a city is set to auto-attack a city, and an army is outside the city waiting to defend, does the tie go to the defender? attacker?

I don't know I feel like it just makes the game more automatic, and takes the fun out of waiting for your enemy to arrive and hoping to click attack the army outside before they attack the city.

No such thing as a tie in war...Well not a war here. Defenders will have a bonus for defense and attackers a bonus to attack. Also, there may be a limit to the number of armies you can command (auto-pilot) at any given time. There may be something like 10-20 slots available. Cities inside an army are auto-defend, but don't count against that number.

The idea will grow as the features grow. In the current game, this feature would make no sense. It would be a lazy way to play. Once we have multiple attack types with all of those sub-features, and then add in commanding (auto-pilot) then it will make more sense. I honestly see Multi-Attack as the game changer...3 helicopters taking out 2000 troops, 2 AA taking out those Helicopters, and then throw in artillery shelling of cities to lessen troop counts...plus much more. City battles could become really interesting.

Let me add another twist to the auto feature...What about Helicopters that can recon instead of attack. Return a near accurate tank,art., AA and general idea of troops in a city.

ooooo!! I've been waiting for different attacker types! oooooo!!! PUT IT IN THE GAMEEE lol
Why not test it on us when you have something going for a round? I know rounds are supposed to last for months and all, but with something like that and other features, test it out on us for like a month. Trial and error on the real players :)

ooooo!! I've been waiting for different attacker types! oooooo!!! PUT IT IN THE GAMEEE lol
Why not test it on us when you have something going for a round? I know rounds are supposed to last for months and all, but with something like that and other features, test it out on us for like a month. Trial and error on the real players :)

yeah focus groups for the dev server will be discussed. I can only test so much. We need a good mix of players to beat the features until they are ready for release.

yeah focus groups for the dev server will be discussed. I can only test so much. We need a good mix of players to beat the features until they are ready for release.

Tru tru. Im sure a good number of us wouldnt mind playing on another server. Hopefully it comes out soon :)

This was mentioned a long time ago and brought up about 8 times since then. I looked at it on Alpha and currently it's not possible. It brought up 2 other ideas:

1. Split the city into quadrants and allow multiple occupations (i.e. if you hold all four you get all city income, if you hold 2 and ally holds 2 you get...you get the picture). This would take some work, but it's feasible. Before I do this I want to finish multiple attack types though.

2. Adding a priority to armies (i.e. auto-Defend, auto-Attack, Idle, etc.). Basically, allow an ally to set an army outside your city and then once another army shows up...If it's set to defend the city...it will. If you send an army at an enemy city and it is outside...It attacks. If it wins it occupies.

...The good thing is that both ideas are doable and will be done in some form.

2. Not good.
This is a game where people have to act and not the Autobot. Honor people who stay online and active to defend and attack.

2. Not good.
This is a game where people have to act and not the Autobot. Honor people who stay online and active to defend and attack.

This is one of the problems with changes...Nobody will ever 100% agree with it. Unfortunately, changes need to happen. #2 will happen...It just won't happen like you might be seeing it right now (or maybe not even like I'm explaining it). I can tell you that when it does exist...it will make sense.

This is one of the problems with changes...Nobody will ever 100% agree with it. Unfortunately, changes need to happen. #2 will happen...It just won't happen like you might be seeing it right now (or maybe not even like I'm explaining it). I can tell you that when it does exist...it will make sense.

Looking at that answer to Nuss's statement i think its better you state what will happen instead of mentioning something what could happen or not or maybe different or whatever... if i understand your answer correct. I think clear statements are better.

Sure there are never 100% to agree with changes, but i would say FORTUNATELY changes should happen what the majority of players ask for or wish ....

Looking at that answer to Nuss's statement i think its better you state what will happen instead of mentioning something what could happen or not or maybe different or whatever... if i understand your answer correct. I think clear statements are better.

Sure there are never 100% to agree with changes, but i would say FORTUNATELY changes should happen what the majority of players ask for or wish ....

Maybe people should read an entire thread before commenting on a generic statement made early in that thread. As far as specifics go...no idea how phase two will act or what will still exist after until after the others are tested.

No for your backhanded comment..what have players suggested that you think we haven't spent hours researching and looking at every flawed angle they forgot to look at?

No for your backhanded comment..what have players suggested that you think we haven't spent hours researching and looking at every flawed angle they forgot to look at?

I want the ability to make everyone i dislike turn pink and you havnt done that yet have you. Come ONNNNN I want it.. WAHHHHHHHH

lol, i think it's for the older players who's so used to the format who are more unwilling to let change happen. I mean... with the use of oil to travel, some players dropped out solely because of that. I'm sure with the additions of auto-defend/auto-attack or quadrant occupations, it's simply something to get used to. I fancy new ideas.
I like having a LOT of interactivity within a game instead of waiting for the certain time to attack cities and what not. I forget most of the time nowadays.
I'm all for it. I still like my original idea :) haha i do support the quadrant rule tho.

Since you brought that up... Does it apply to FOUR allies? or EACH army???

Completely offtopic I have to use 1 post to say that HRH's signature and usertitle(as I'm a half Greek) did make me laugh :p

Maybe people should read an entire thread before commenting on a generic statement made early in that thread. As far as specifics go...no idea how phase two will act or what will still exist after until after the others are tested.

No for your backhanded comment..what have players suggested that you think we haven't spent hours researching and looking at every flawed angle they forgot to look at?

Prophet stated:
....
2. Adding a priority to armies (i.e. auto-Defend, auto-Attack, Idle, etc.). Basically, allow an ally to set an army outside your city and then once another army shows up...If it's set to defend the city...it will. If you send an army at an enemy city and it is outside...It attacks. If it wins it occupies.
...
#2 will happen...It just won't happen like you might be seeing it right now (or maybe not even like I'm explaining it). I can tell you that when it does exist...it will make sense.

HRH comment:
You are very confusing
I think the first part is a clear and not a generic statement ?
Second part is opposite the first part.

So thats all what i was mentioning about clear statements.

..
Prophet Statement:
..
Maybe people should read an entire thread before commenting ...

I agree, if you read my statement completely, i never said you guys forget anything or did not spend time i researching whatever.
I only mentioned that i am glad (=(Fortunately) that peoples wishes are fulfilled.
(ok maybe instead of ...should... i had better written .. will...

And again,
i also support not having an Automated Game like you "generally" or "specfic" suggested with the attacks or defendings.
That was really all what i wanted to say and not, as you maybe understand it, pointing at coders telling they do a bad job.

Dear Staff,

According to Luke's blog, we can expect a server change in the beginning of July. Can we get any hints, or a heads up regarding potential game/feature changes that might also take place? Or should we anticipate that these are still in production and won't be ready for a while? It was mentioned in this post that feature suggestion #2 was close to being a possibility. Just wondering if we're still on target for any new playing styles.

Thank you.

So, I have another idea/question.

Is it possible to put several armies within the same alliance in ONE city? Since we ARE allies, why can't we support each other but being able to land in the same city?
It could add another difficulty level to the game as well as a lot MORE strategies.
And it can also help armies recover and grow stronger as well?

Any thoughts?

READ THIS AND NO OTHER POST!!!! THAT WILL BE SUPER

This was mentioned a long time ago and brought up about 8 times since then. I looked at it on Alpha and currently it's not possible. It brought up 2 other ideas:

1. Split the city into quadrants and allow multiple occupations (i.e. if you hold all four you get all city income, if you hold 2 and ally holds 2 you get...you get the picture). This would take some work, but it's feasible. Before I do this I want to finish multiple attack types though.

2. Adding a priority to armies (i.e. auto-Defend, auto-Attack, Idle, etc.). Basically, allow an ally to set an army outside your city and then once another army shows up...If it's set to defend the city...it will. If you send an army at an enemy city and it is outside...It attacks. If it wins it occupies.

...The good thing is that both ideas are doable and will be done in some form.

you probably will get my donationship

WIN! hahahaha