Gilbert Torres

No one's calling UN the best alliance out there. Like any other alliance out there we to have our flaws, and there are plenty of things to improve upon. But all we're saying, is that we have shown improvement, and we are still taking strides in order to become a better alliance. No one is being arrogant here, we're just proud of how far our alliance has come, but we know, that there is still work to be done.

No. I just don't like spreading the text from the left side all the way on the right side. I like keeping the eye focused on one location, instead of having it move all over the place

Yeah, but you can't tell me that you like having in-active's in your alliance. They get raided, and they don't help you out in anyway.

This is not the only topic you have bad mouthed us in. Ever since the events that involved the UN and RE occurred, the only topics you have posted on, are those that concern the UN.

Good to hear.

I'm getting the impression, that you really don't like the UN. I don't know if it's because of the events that occurred a while back, but all your recent posts are about you bad mouthing the UN.

Way to go OAC, props from your friends over at UN.

Can BW stop whining!?

o/4077th for their bravery. May the best alliance win

I agree with Illusion, the difference in NS is far to big. I'm not so sure about the #, but I do remember being at around 1,500NS, and being able to attack a nation at around 800NS. the numbers aren't specific, but I do agree that the margin is to big. And I believe that reducing it, might get us less in-actives

I couldn't agree with Naon anymore. I think that leader's of alliances should have the ability to remove members that are flagging their AA, that have been inactive for 3-5 days. Of course we would try contacting them before any action is taken, but I think that in the end, leader's should have the option to remove in-actives. They are just dead meat that we are carrying and in the end instead of helping your alliance they hurt it. P.S. This may be off topic, but I would honestly love to see a change when it come to having war with in-actives. What I hate most is attacking an active nation, and then all of a sudden they never return. It slows my economy down, and doesn't allow me to attack other nations. And its especially frustrating, having to wait the 7 days to have the war expire. Any people who feel the same way??

>>>Some may see this post under the CN:SE suuggestion box since I tried posting it there. But I could not find it anywhere. So I decided to add it to the TE suggestion box, so please don't get mad Situation Well I first discovered CN about three months ago, and ever since then I have been enjoying the game, and the politics that come along with it. One major thing, that needs improvement, from my point of view though, is the focus on your actual nation. I feel that not enough focus in going to your nation, but instead it's being projected to your alliance. Suggestion So my suggestion is to make the game more about your nation, then about your alliance. Yes I do believe alliances should stay, but all I'm saying is add more focus to one's own nation, and not make the whole game mainly about alliances. Below I have made a of list some things I think would allow this to happen. (I know some are going to disagree and others agree, but either way I want your feedback, and feel free to add to my list ) > Give nations at least four resources at start of the game. (I think this would make the game a bit more realistic, and give nations a boost in their economy as well.) > Add crimes, protests/riots, internal issues that you will have to take action in as ruler. (Basically more events, but happening more often they they currently occur. I think adding more realistic features would make things more exciting, and give you the chance to make decisions that will have a significant impact on your nation, depending on your actions as leader.) > Being able to attack more then two attacks at a time. (I think that being able to attack opposing nations only twice from every area of your military is to little. On ground battles I would suggest having 4 available attacks at your disposal. Same goes for aircraft attacks. But on CM's I would suggest sticking to 2 or maybe even 3.) Conclusion So that's my list I know my list is lacking other major components, but my main goal was to get my suggestion out to the public. My only feeling is that not enough focus is going to what the game is mainly all about, and that is your nation. So that's basically my suggestion, and I hope I can get some feedback, and maybe even some consideration from the MOD's? Thank you, Gilbert Torres

Best of luck to both alliances.

Bump

Good Luck!

BG and Thai, I personally think this "Next Big War" would be better if we actually had sides. Such as the allies vs. the axis powers. I think that would hype it up a bit more. And also the use of nukes, but only as last resorts. Those are my thoughts.

What a fight, keep it up MHA and FARK

I removed Sojourner's banishment, but apparently someone changed it again. Damian, Sojourner was one of the best members the UN has had, and I think we have honestly lost something good.

I'm in, but I think we there should be sides. Makes it more interesting at least for me. :jihad: (and possibly nukes)

Thanks. o/UN o/Poison Clan

Congrats

Well the UN is a blue sphered alliance. So urge all members to get on blue.

Good to hear.

So does Cataclysm want things straightened out? Or do you want to further elevate the problems?

haha funny )): just kidding