Larger alliances taking advantage of smaller ones

Rill wrote: Silverleaf wrote: that ridiculous mindset that more means better - I often wonder how many of them would actually stand alone- or have the attitude they do if they did not have a murder of crows backing them?? - I give WAY more respect to the smaller alliances tht stand their ground and the players that seek these smaller alliances.   Interesting comment coming from a player in a Consone alliance.  Last I heard, Consone is substantially larger than Crow.  And unlike Crow, which grew rather organically for the most part as players from established Crow alliances began their own alliances and chose to affiliate, Consone is a group of alliances that began independently and decided to announce a confederated group in order to ... apparently establish that they are a group to be reckoned with. I have nothing against Consone and respect many fine players in Consone.  I also have nothing against the idea of a group of alliances that "have each others' backs," whether it's Harmless? and DLords, the Crow alliances, Consone, whatever.  I personally think having a large group of friendly players makes that game more fun. But when one of your members singles out Crows for being a large group of confederated alliances I just have to well ...

Well, since The_Dude made it clear they aren't using actual sitters, I can't accuse them of breaking any rules.

But it still doesn't sit well with me that alliances can continue to claim the benefits of a former member after that member has left the game, by any means legal or otherwise. I mean, you presumably already have the advantage of knowing they are leaving before anyone, so you get first dibs on laying siege to their cities and claiming their spots for yourself. If you don't want to do that, that land, in my mind, should be freed up for anyone to contest and claim. What you are essentially doing by RETAINING these inactives is giving a 50-member alliance (as an example) the land ownership of potentially 60+ members while denying that land from active players, depending on how often this retention strategy is applied.

Now, if you're keeping them alive because the members plan on returning, that's a different story, although not completely different.

we should stay on topic of larger alliances attacking smaller alliances.....if more space was provided in the game there most likely will be less of these conflicts, smaller alliances can secure their own alliance areas without overlap of established larger alliances...inactive accounts can remain in game for over 120 days taking up space that could be used by active players causing these disputes of alliance claims on lands....

I see nothing wrong with RETAINING inactive towns in alliances, for the purpose The_Dude describes.

"does purposely sitting an inactive account count as an alt/break the 2-account max?"Hadus

It is quite clear what hadus was eluding to, sitting as described in the game rules Audrordan...not sitting on.

As a fairly new player, I don't really understand all the fuss over "rare minerals". As far as I know, only four of the sixteen have any current use in the game. Supposition is that the remainder will play a part in new schools of magic, if and when those ever show up. But if the new magic is as feeble as the current magic, why even bother with them? Armies sitting on relatively useless mines aren't being used to attack other players, so let them sit.