Shimmer Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 Remove alliances and make it a free for all. -wars will be more balanced and require stats to be manually recorded like gw2. -gurilla warfare would always be around -spying and double agents could occur because of no as -implement secret aid -implementing future cn wonders as improvements could help with mass testing and critquing Basically make it different, but the same. Spice it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shimmer Posted March 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 Sorry, on my touch forgive the poor post and view it as a starting point to be built upon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingDingaLing Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 I agree with no AA it would make makeing target lists more challenging. Secret Aid could be cool. I think the War Range so be more in line with SE as the difference between 4400 and 2200 is alot in this game, or possibly lower how much land affects your NS because it seems to raise it a pretty good bit and puts you in range of targets way bigger than you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onion Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 (edited) I agree with this as well. The point of CN:TE is to be the king of the hill and there is no way that can happen unless you are part of a huge alliance. Eventually you will see a few giant alliances winning all the time. Edited April 2, 2009 by Onion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius C Nero Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 (edited) You may take away the AA ingame but that's not going to stop nations from operating in ad-hoc alliances using offsite forums to coordinate their efforts. Edited April 2, 2009 by Emperor Tiberius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimKongIl Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 You may take away the AA ingame but that's not going to stop nations from operating in ad-hoc alliances using offsite forums to coordinate their efforts. that is true but the one thing you wouldn't have is the treaty web gridlock that seems to be getting worse each round. Without this I think TE will become just like SE. I like SE a lot but I think TE was designed to be fundamentally different and more aggressive. Although I understand that in SE there used to be no AA field and nations just added their alliance to the nation BIO. There would be nothing to prevent rulers from doing that again. perhaps a better solution would be to cap the number of nations that can join an AA to 100. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janitor Posted April 3, 2009 Report Share Posted April 3, 2009 I think LE is beginning to take care of the gridlock issue? no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingDingaLing Posted April 4, 2009 Report Share Posted April 4, 2009 I think LE is beginning to take care of the gridlock issue? no? I think they are setting the standard of getting treatied up in the beginning to grow then cancel and begin to fight then. But they still contribute to the gridlock in the beginning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burning Glory Posted April 4, 2009 Report Share Posted April 4, 2009 perhaps a better solution would be to cap the number of nations that can join an AA to 100. ^^^^^This would work!!^^^^^ Also if anyone thinks about this, EVEN if AA's say they don't have treaties....they do! Try and attack BW with out CDT and 4077th joining in...All say they have no treaties but they do, its just not a formal treaty. Also TPF, TF, and another AA i won't mention could have no treaty (even though we do now), but if any one of us is attacked we all would join in. There are others, like RD and ADULT or who ever.....Its just what is, but limiting the AA's numbers would help. BG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxfiles Posted April 6, 2009 Report Share Posted April 6, 2009 perhaps a better solution would be to cap the number of nations that can join an AA to 100. that wont work either myaaone myaatwo myaathree see the picture.. same alliance but a little different aa spelling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvenStar Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 I agree that removing AA wont stop people making alliances. Rejected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts