1. Create separate sub-forums for Alliance members.
- access restricted to Alliance members
- forums created only for authorised alliances who request a forum

2. Allow Alliances to declare "war" or "peace" on eachother, which are then recorded on the Alliance's public profile page.
- Both alliances must agree to declare peace with eachother. Players are then restricted from attacking members in Alliances they have peace agreements with.
- Clicking on armies/homebases/cities belonging to enemy alliance players displays a "your alliance is at war with this player's alliance" message in Google Earth.

3. Allow Alliance members to pool money into a central alliance bank account accessible by all alliance members.
- To help new players get started

4. Restrict players from attacking players in their own alliance.
(Unless this is already the case?)'

5. Alliance Creators should also be able to post a "Message of the day" on the Alliance profile, to tell Alliance members things like "Move all your troops to New York" or "Remember not to attack Alliance X whilst we're in negotiations".

1. Create separate sub-forums for Alliance members.
- access restricted to Alliance members
- forums created only for authorised alliances who request a forum

2. Allow Alliances to declare "war" or "peace" on eachother, which are then recorded on the Alliance's public profile page.
- Both alliances must agree to declare peace with eachother. Players are then restricted from attacking members in Alliances they have peace agreements with.
- Clicking on armies/homebases/cities belonging to enemy alliance players displays a "your alliance is at war with this player's alliance" message in Google Earth.

3. Allow Alliance members to pool money into a central alliance bank account accessible by all alliance members.
- To help new players get started

4. Restrict players from attacking players in their own alliance.
(Unless this is already the case?)'


1. It will be a horrible nightmare and some Mods and developers who play are active in the game - Shadowdani may or may not have full access to the forum but he is also a loyal member of the RCMP. There would be Legitimate and paranoid cries of spying on forum boards or the potential spying on forum boards.

2. I really like this.

3. It has been suggested but the logistics is horrible. You have to trust the player in charge of the purse stings or if everyone can access it to trust the whole alliance NOT to go empty it to hold a city or take a city. Coding it to have daily limits on withdrawal might be possible but there are more important things to do code wise first. - Like merging and seperating armies, allowing allaince armies into a city to rearm or just defend your city.

4. This might be possible but at the moment I would appose this. A simple way to trade cities among large alliances is to leave a 100 man army army holding the city your giving to your team mate and saying when you arrive kill the army and take the city. Its better just to code alliance members can enter a city and the member with most men controls the Geos for the city And if your alliance members don't look to see if the owner of a city is a friendly are they really good team players?!?

Hush Roger ofc, I attacked your city that time with the 2nd Romulan when I really wanted the 3rd Romullan to hit another city.. It was a mistake!!

Some of these rules would break reality: the fact that people can be underhanded. I'm in favour of a system where it shows how many treaties you've made, and how many times you've violated it or broken it, plus mutual withdrawals.

i'm all in favour of the treaties, but if two armies are outside a city, it might be better to code the players names with a different colour than those that arent part of the larger 'alliance'.
i think that makes sense.

1. Create separate sub-forums for Alliance members.
- access restricted to Alliance members
- forums created only for authorised alliances who request a forum
We already offer this over at the unofficial forums www.gewarriors.net if you would like an alliance forum there, just PM luke and he will pass judgement :)


2. Allow Alliances to declare "war" or "peace" on eachother, which are then recorded on the Alliance's public profile page.
- Both alliances must agree to declare peace with eachother. Players are then restricted from attacking members in Alliances they have peace agreements with.
- Clicking on armies/homebases/cities belonging to enemy alliance players displays a "your alliance is at war with this player's alliance" message in Google Earth.
Great idea!


3. Allow Alliance members to pool money into a central alliance bank account accessible by all alliance members.
- To help new players get started
Not a great idea, especially for new alliances who send invites to everyone, bad people could accept, pillage the account, and abbandon ship.


4. Restrict players from attacking players in their own alliance.
(Unless this is already the case?)'
I'm with RomJ on this one;

4. This might be possible but at the moment I would appose this. A simple way to trade cities among large alliances is to leave a 100 man army army holding the city your giving to your team mate and saying when you arrive kill the army and take the city. Its better just to code alliance members can enter a city and the member with most men controls the Geos for the city And if your alliance members don't look to see if the owner of a city is a friendly are they really good team players?!?


Thats my 2 Geos

T.

2. Allow Alliances to declare "war" or "peace" on eachother, which are then recorded on the Alliance's public profile page.
- Both alliances must agree to declare peace with eachother. Players are then restricted from attacking members in Alliances they have peace agreements with.
- Clicking on armies/homebases/cities belonging to enemy alliance players displays a "your alliance is at war with this player's alliance" message in Google Earth.


That's pretty good...except the part about being restricted from attacked. I think you should be able to attack those you're at "peace" with. Naturally, if this happened, the peace agreement would be shattered, but it's better this way. Otherwise, the whole "At peace/At war" system is just an early warning system for attacks.

I guess that could work, as long as a "Your Alliance has declared peace with this Alliance. Are you sure you want to attack? Doing so will violate peace agreements between your two Alliances and be recorded on your Alliance profile page."

Total agreement with above /\
|

Ditto plus the option for mutual withdrawal of treaties.

I guess that could work, as long as a "Your Alliance has declared peace with this Alliance. Are you sure you want to attack? Doing so will violate peace agreements between your two Alliances and be recorded on your Alliance profile page."

I'm all for this :)

Every city/user/homebase you look at should tell you your status with that alliance peace/neutral/war

It shouldnt restrict you attacking, but it saves you checking out a couple of pages before you know weather to attack a city :)

T.

Your player page should show many times you've broken a treaty in the last 30 days or so.

It would also mean players need to use the browser less to check the statuses of other players and cities, and can use Google Earth more, which is one of the aims of GEWar.

5. Alliance Creators should also be able to post a "Message of the day" on the Alliance profile, to tell Alliance members things like "Move all your troops to New York" or "Remember not to attack Alliance X whilst we're in negotiations".

5. Alliance Creators should also be able to post a "Message of the day" on the Alliance profile, to tell Alliance members things like "Move all your troops to New York" or "Remember not to attack Alliance X whilst we're in negotiations".

You can do that, you just type "Message of the Day:" before your message.

Yeh, but then it gets overriden by other user's messages.

the alliance general should be able to make his comment sticky on the alliance page

1) Yeah, I would like if the number of maximum notes in the alliance page would be bigger.
(E.g. Because GEwars is played by players from all around the world we do not play at the same time. The problem is that in the time when you are offline (sleep) people from the other side of the world post their notes. Sometimes their are so many notes that the first are overriden ans so you don't know everything what happened...)

2) I think there should be a link to the alliance-wikipage

3) Beisdes the "notes" (and the "message of the day") I would appreciate "Event\important Notes" wrote by the members/leaders. (E.g. "Alliance X broke the pact! They're now our enemies." or "Make ready for our strike at Cape Town. (We will attack 2.1.06)" )

Refreshing an old thread:

Can we have a sticky post option for alliance leaders on alliance page please?

the alliance general should be able to make his comment sticky on the alliance page

Considering it was a nearly two year old thread and you are only interested in a small point in it for reference, I think you could safely have posted a new thread without upsetting anyone (except maybe Brendo, who has a photographic memory of past threads).


That said, this aint a bad idea. Most of the others are moving the game toward a direction the crew is against, but a simple little note to all from the alliance leader that stays on top is a good tweak.

Blitz's tick of approval.

This option has already been added on the alpha game.

This option has already been added on the alpha game.
Exactly. I would like to have it also on the main game.

I like this idea, it would certainly be useful, I know myself I have been wishing I could post a sticky on my TC alliance page.