"An alliance should only be given three confederations and three naps to give out to other alliances."
3 confederations seems fair but it should be possible with more NAPS like 5 or so.
I guess 5 NAPs could be good. However, I am trying to make an alliance choice for a NAP and a Confed a difficult one. If an alliance is given a loose limit in decisions, there is a less chance of an alliance making a 'hard' choice on who to have for NAP or Confed. Basically, what an alliance will have is what everyone sees today in this game... A long list of NAPs and Confeds on their diplomacy page. I still stand by 3 NAPs and 3 Confeds.
"Each alliance involved in a confederation will have 5% gold tax
taken from each member of the respected alliances. Each alliance
involved in a nap will have 2% gold tax taken from each member of the
respected alliances. For example, if one alliance has 3 confederations
and 3 naps in place with other alliances, as a result, this alliance
will have their members taxed a total of 21% of their gold income
weekly."
Way to harsh and who will the money go to?
Might be something like 1% pr. confederation and nothing for NAPs
The gold will not go to any alliance. The gold is more or less a cost to have a NAP or Confed weekly. The gold taken from each member emphasizes how much an alliance really needs another alliance for a confederation or a nap. If an alliance really wants this alliance for a nap or a confederation, the alliance or alliances involved will pay this steep gold tax in order to have a confederation or a nap. The point again is to make the decision a hard one instead of a no brainer decision.
"For any alliance to get a nap or confederation approved, each
alliance involved will need 10 of their members from each alliance to
approve the confederation or nap."
I see no point in this.
I can see why an alliance that relies on a few of their members to make decisions will hate this idea. In fact there are a quite of few alliances that make decisions only through the leader. If each member is going to get taxed for gold to be in a confed or a nap, these members should have a just say if they want to do this or not. Perhaps, if a leader chooses not to have a vote, there should be a penalty for that. The cost for everything I have listed will increase by 15%. A leader can only change from vote to no vote every 6 months. This will make the option have less exploitation to avoid getting taxed too much etc... I feel members should have a say on who their confed or nap should be. If an alliance does not have 10 active members to even vote, then these alliances have bigger issues to deal with or maybe should disband the alliance or grow more.
"There will be an initial cost of 10 million gold for each alliance
involved in a confederation. There will be an initial cost of 3 million
gold for each nap involved in a nap."
No point in this either.
Again, there needs to be a hard choice made when an alliance chooses who their confed or nap is. I felt a steep price via gold will be a good way to make the choice difficult for the leader and members of the respected alliances.
"Too cancel a confederation, it will cost the same initial cost of 10
million gold and 3 million gold to cancel a nap. 10 members from one
alliance can actually void the nap and confederation deal by a vote.
The other alliance that did not vote on the cancelled nap and
confederation, will not have to pay any gold, but will receive the other
alliances gold payment to cancel the confederation or nap (gold will go
to the alliance bank)."
Allready implemented with the escrow?
A lot of players seem to have no idea how the escrow really works... My suggestion refines and makes it a bit more clear as to what is expected from each alliance if they choose to be in a confed or a nap with the other alliance. As for the voting, that is not in the game and I think having a vote option will get players more involved in their own alliances in terms of politics in game.
"An alliance will not be able to re-confed or re-nap the same alliance for 3 months if the confederation or nap was cancelled."
Good idea
Thank you.
"To upgrade a nap to a confederation, there will have to be 10
members from each alliance voting yes for it to approve the deal. The
same initial cost for a confederation will be applied."
No point
To keep up with the theme of having a vote, a vote would also have to be made to to upgrade or downgrade an alliance from a confed to a nap etc... Or if a leader does not want a vote this can be done without one obviously.
"To downgrade a confederation, there will have to be 10 members from
each alliance voting yes for it to approve the deal. The same initial
cost for a nap will be applied."
No point
Same as above.
"In order to siege a player in this game that is in an alliance, an
alliance has to declare war on the other alliance. The cost to declare
war onto another alliance is 40 million gold. The other alliance that
did not declare war will not be charged a thing for declaring war back.
This means that in order to siege another player, your alliance has to
be at war with them. Military ,diplomacy, and magic attacks are fine
without declaring war, but sieging is not. An alliance can not use
diplomat or magic or military attacks against other alliances they have a
nap or a confederation with. If a peaceful resolution has been resolved
between two alliances, both parties will have to pay 10 million gold to
cancel the war."
Why should you pay 40 mill gold to declare war?
There should be a cost to declare war. This cost will make going to war a harder choice for an alliance to decide on. I felt 40 million gold was a steep enough price to declare war on someone else.
Why only sieges if you have declared war?
I feel sieges are pretty OP in this game considering how long it takes to build and how short it takes to demolish a building. I do understand that some players think bumping a caravan is a start of a war as is magic or diplomat attacks. The thing is, a player will not lose any buildings from these attacks; only goods will be destroyed. Making the siege option an only war option will force an alliance to declare war onto another alliance.
They need to fix the "war" issues so you can end a war with a "dead" alliance.
I agree. Perhaps there should also be a cost to end a war via gold. Once that is paid, the war tag is gone. 5 million gold would be a good cost to end a war.
I can see the point if you want to have more "declared" wars but why the 40 mill payment then?
I have explained this already a few suggestions above this one. It is to make declaring war a harder choice to make.
"If a player leaves an alliance, he or she can not join another
alliance or rejoin back into his or her old alliance for another 2
weeks. The cost to leave an alliance will be 500,000 gold. The cost to
re-join the same alliance will cost 2 million gold. The cost to join
your first alliance will be free but... The 2nd alliance and future
alliances he or she decides to join, will cost 2 million gold. Until he
or she has joined 5 different alliances, the cost to join the 6th
alliance and others will double for every new alliance that he or she
decides to join. All the gold a member pays to join or leave an
alliance will go to the alliance bank."
I really see little point. But might be worth putting in a curfew
of 7 days before joining the same alliance to prevent the "shopping" of
inactive players cities.
I guess that will also be good for shopping inactive cities. I more or less put that in to prevent alliance hoppers from doing it as frequent as they do now. A player should be forced to make hard decisions like an alliance.
Thank you for replying.
Tweet
NAPs and Confederations
Topic Options
Meagh wrote:
