I think it would be interesting to see the ability for an alliance to purchase one single base that functions a bit like user homebases.

Alliance members could house their armies there, add/split/merge their armies in the base, and create armies (for a larger price than it costs to make them from their home base, perhaps depending on how far away the alliance base is from the user base).

Perhaps it would be required to have an alliance base if your alliance is worth more than X million. But there definately should be some rather large benefit to having an alliance base, which I actually can't think of right now. :D

However, these alliance bases would be attackable, and would be able to be weakened/destroyed once all troops in the base were killed. Once the base is destroyed, the alliance would need to spend geos to rebuild it. This is why the alliance base needs some benefit to having it, or else an alliance would just leave it in disrepair, or not buy one at all. Perhaps if your alliance base hasn't been destroyed over the length of a month, an alliance nuke would have been built. There would need to be a page showing when a nuke for an alliance is reaching completion, showing how many days left.

The nuke is probably a bad idea, but you get the idea about a benefit.


What do you think?

I think it would be interesting to see the ability for an alliance to purchase one single base that functions a bit like user homebases.

Alliance members could house their armies there, add/split/merge their armies in the base, and create armies (for a larger price than it costs to make them from their home base, perhaps depending on how far away the alliance base is from the user base).

Perhaps it would be required to have an alliance base if your alliance is worth more than X million. But there definately should be some rather large benefit to having an alliance base, which I actually can't think of right now. :D

However, these alliance bases would be attackable, and would be able to be weakened/destroyed once all troops in the base were killed. Once the base is destroyed, the alliance would need to spend geos to rebuild it. This is why the alliance base needs some benefit to having it, or else an alliance would just leave it in disrepair, or not buy one at all. Perhaps if your alliance base hasn't been destroyed over the length of a month, an alliance nuke would have been built. There would need to be a page showing when a nuke for an alliance is reaching completion, showing how many days left.

The nuke is probably a bad idea, but you get the idea about a benefit.


What do you think?

This is an interesting concept worth vetting.

I actually like the alliance nuke idea :)

Problem is though that for it to be in a strategic position for one member it may not be in a strategic position for another member. Unless multiple Alliance bases can be created (bought) and each one will create a nuke unless destroyed in 2 weeks. Defeating the last army within the base destroys the base. There would need to be a new KML file created to keep track of the alliance bases though, this could be fun - alliances attacking alliance for fear of nuclear capabilities will help newbie players by having armies dieing not for the purpose of controlling cities but just to hamstring an alliance.

My likey - lets have another look at nukes and nuke shields though....

Blitzkrieg

I knew I had forgotten something...

Alliance members would be able to instantly warp to their alliance base, for a price. This price should depend on how far away a user is from his alliance's base. It may also be a good idea to have the price depend on the total worth of the alliance as well, so the price isn't too high for small alliances, or too low for bigger ones.

I think it would be interesting to see the ability for an alliance to purchase one single base that functions a bit like user homebases.

Alliance members could house their armies there, add/split/merge their armies in the base, and create armies (for a larger price than it costs to make them from their home base, perhaps depending on how far away the alliance base is from the user base).

Perhaps it would be required to have an alliance base if your alliance is worth more than X million. But there definately should be some rather large benefit to having an alliance base, which I actually can't think of right now. :D

However, these alliance bases would be attackable, and would be able to be weakened/destroyed once all troops in the base were killed. Once the base is destroyed, the alliance would need to spend geos to rebuild it. This is why the alliance base needs some benefit to having it, or else an alliance would just leave it in disrepair, or not buy one at all. Perhaps if your alliance base hasn't been destroyed over the length of a month, an alliance nuke would have been built. There would need to be a page showing when a nuke for an alliance is reaching completion, showing how many days left.

The nuke is probably a bad idea, but you get the idea about a benefit.


What do you think?

I'm all for it - but only if they are attackable :cool:

T.

I knew I had forgotten something...

Alliance members would be able to instantly warp to their alliance base, for a price. This price should depend on how far away a user is from his alliance's base. It may also be a good idea to have the price depend on the total worth of the alliance as well, so the price isn't too high for small alliances, or too low for bigger ones.

Until teleportation is a viable option in our world I think we should keep it out of GEWar's world. Being able to move 5x faster for a higher price, however, is a good idea.

it'll need a 5 city requirement to built then or something, or everyone will just start making their own alliances.

Sounds just like a way to punch below the belt and take out an entire alliance.
Rather, why can't we store armies in eachothers bases, instead of having a "alliance base"?

Yes we should implement this it would be somewhat similar to my sharing cities idea in which you could have multiple armies stored in one area.

Sounds just like a way to punch below the belt and take out an entire alliance.
Rather, why can't we store armies in eachothers bases, instead of having a "alliance base"?


yes, alliance cities being like your own would be very good, also being able to purchase troops in a city that you occupy would be nice too, but only to cut down on server bandwidth being there will be less army movement of course... :p

I believe it is a good idea becuase an Alliance may have members whose HB is heaps far away. So if one alliance wishes to take over one whole country cities etc it would be easier for the other members to send their troops to the allliance base and wait until the right time to strike.

Maybe the alliance can have only one?

I believe it is a good idea becuase an Alliance may have members whose HB is heaps far away. So if one alliance wishes to take over one whole country cities etc it would be easier for the other members to send their troops to the allliance base and wait until the right time to strike.

Maybe the alliance can have only one?
That was the intent; alliances can only have one alliance base.