Alliance Wars Idea

[Outatime]

I think that when "alliance wars" are (hopefully) added, instead of everyone having a war base they build out of their buildings (like Clash of Clans), their should be a "communal" war base. One or two buildings from each base on the alliance could be used to build the base, or the average base level of the alliance members could determine the level of the base. It could be stocked with a few resources from everyone's base as well. Troops could be donated to the base from anyone, although a troop donation limit could be added so the highest level members don't donate all of the best troops. A special "alliance headquarters" could be added that would be the main goal, with the average age in the alliance determining the age of the hq with the alliance's banner in the center. This is done so the alliances with like one guy in the industrial or enlightenment age while everyone else in the alliance being medieval age won't have an advantage over an alliance with everyone in the gunpowder age or something. The base would be nationless; however, to deter people from always picking Japan so their war base would be better protected, It could be attacked Boom Beach's operation-style, with buildings staying destroyed and people taking turns attacking. Replays could be done to see what people did, and the amount of health left on a building could be seen. The winner could be determined by percentage destroyed after a 24-hour period, and if the alliances tie, then either by the number of attacks or the combined time of the attacks, meaning speed and efficiency are key.
This would be more realistic and more like real wars. Real wars aren't singular nations attacking other single nations independently from other nations in an alliance. Real wars are nations attacking together, on the same battle front against the same enemy. WWI and WWII are good examples of this, Britain, France, and the USA attacking on the same front with one another against a common enemy. They didn't each attack a different nation, they attacked the same nation on the same front.
This could also set Dominations apart from other games, not being considered a "Clash of Clans knock-off," but a completely independent game with a similar core idea. People would want to play this unique way of having wars, and thus making it more popular and better than ever.
A good secondary feature would be able to attack simultaneously on the war base, as that again would be more realistic. Sadly; however, this would be extremely impractical because of lag and things, but it would be a cool feature to add nonetheless.
If you feel this is a good/bad idea, comment below. Any and all critism, critques, and agreements are encouraged. If enough people like it, we may see it in a future update!
-Happy Attacking!

 

[Bones64]

I really like this idea, but I have a few questions and a few ideas:

1. When creating the communal base, would players have to use mill and markets to keep the resources they donate or will the communal base be purely military buildings and walls?
2. Is there a way for the leader to edit other peoples contributions, since perhaps some people could be trolls and keep their part of the base open for the enemy. I know that this probably won't happen but you never know
3. For the communal base, how big will the area be, will it be like a normal city size, or will it be like in Boom Beach where the operations have giant areas for the bases
4. What would be the rules for wonders? Would only the leader be able to use them or will anyone be able.

Ideas:
1. I think that the leaders nation should be the communal bases nation, by that I mean the architecture and cosmetics should be like the leaders nation just to spice up the bases, i.e if the alliance leader is Japanese, the communal base should have Japanese architecture and so on.
2. I think that the leader should be able to use more items for their contribution, like using more towers, walls, mills etc since they are the alliance leader. But not that much such that it's broken but enough that its significant
3. I feel like if for alliance wars we are given a huge area for the communal base, each player can use their town center and buildings to create minor cities while the leader, like stated above, can use more items and their town center, which would be the alliance headquarters, would be significantly stronger and perhaps be able to spawn units and shoot at attackers. Basically, the leader can create a sort of capital within the base with the other players in the alliance creating mini cities so that it feels more like a war of civilizations.
4. Like in Boom Beach, where destroying buildings grants points, I believe that the alliance wars should have a point system, for example, destroying x number of buildings would generate 5 points, destroying the town center of mini cities created by non-leader players would generate 10 points, and destroying the alliance headquarters, or capital as I would like to call it, would generate 50 points. By the end of the war, points would be counted up and the highest wins. And if there is a draw, settle it like how you stated, with the deficiency or speed of the attacks.

These are my ideas, don't know if they're that good, but I feel like this would better improve on your idea. If you disagree, it doesn't matter since your idea by itself is good enough for alliance wars, I really hope Nexon or BigHuge Games implements this. This seems really unique and I can't wait for the massive battles and epic wars that will come from this if it was implemented. Just imagine the industrial age or modern age with the giant wards that might occur

 

[Outatime]

Thanks for the input Bones64!
Answers:
1. I think the mills and markets would be communal as well, "given" to the alliance based on the leader's level of mills and markets. Other than those, all of the other buildings would be purely military buildings and walls. Also, loot would be distrubuted evenly to everyone in the alliance based on how much was stolen from the enemy, with a bonus if the allaince wins the war, so people won't just attack the mills and markets and that's it.
2. Leaders would have total control over placement of buildings, although everyone can have "suggestions" on where to put them. This means that they can place buildings wherever, but the leader has the final say and can overrule a movement of a building and can "lock" the placement of buildings. Council members could have semi-control, although they can't move the leader's "locked" buiuldings.
3. It would be bigger than normal than size, but the exact size is still unknown. I guess it would be proportional to the size of the alliances attacking so buildings won't be too squished or too spread out.
4. Wonders could be donated by anyone, although only one of each type can be used, and economic-centric ones wouldn't be used since what's the point?

Idea Feedback:
1. Great idea! It would be cool to see a HUGE base full of Japanese or German or Roman architecture everywhere.
2. While it would be cool for the alliance leader to have more buildings in the base, it brings it back to the issue of unbalanced alliances, like those with like all classic age players except for the enlightenment age leader, but it is a cool idea though.
3. Again, while it would be cool to have EVERYONE's town center and mini-base on the map, I feel it would be insanely huge when there are 50-player alliances with everyone's little town center on the map. The lag would be real . However, that could be morphed into another idea I had of having it campaign style with the lowest guys first leading up to the best guy's base.
4. That is a good idea, and way better than my idea, lol. It would be easier to calculate which alliances are better on the leader boards based on the amount of points it has, and a victory could double the number of points received for a base, so victories would be more desired.

Additions:
One thing I would like to add that I forgot to add before is like Clash of Clans, there should be a preparation day to set up the base and another day to attack it. Also, it would be cool if the alliance could "save" one or two bases so that they don't always have to remake the whole base over each time they want to attack, and changes could be made if people leveled up, got better defenses, etc.

Again, thanks for your ideas!

 

[Bones64]

Thanks for your reply Outatime. I guess its true that having a giant city would cause severe lag for 50 v 50 wars. But your idea of a campaign style kind of confuses me, care to elaborate more about that. From what I can make of it, it seems to be like how Clash of Clans does their clan wars, except the players can only start from the lowest player and rise to the top by defeating the previous players, not a bad idea, but it deters from the idea of having a massive city to siege. Sorry if I'm interpreting this the wrong way, care to explain. Also thanks about the scoring system.

 

[Outatime]

Bones64, the campaign idea was my original alliance wars idea, but I thought it would be boring for higher level players as they would have to wait to do anything. Also, if one guy messed up his attack, then the alliance pretty much lost, so I never really expanded on the idea. The large map idea I thought was way better anway

 

[Bones64]

Thanks, hopefully they'll do something like this with DomiNations instead of copying clan wars. This game has a lot of potential to be the next big thing. Also, quick question, do you think that there should be new nations added in this game, if so which ones

 

[Outatime]

Kind of off topic..but I'll answer your question!
Yes, but only like one or two more.
America: While most people think it's dumb as it's hasn't been around that long, but Rome is in the game, and it never made it to the medieval age! I think the power would be increased resource production (Bountiful Resources?) or something, but I don't know.
Spain?: A lot of people this would be a good nation, but I have no idea what kind of power it would have.
Russia: I haven't seen many requests for this nation, although a lot can be done with it, a good power could be massive size, meaning there is more room to build. Maybe cold weather, meaning less troops can be deployed against them.
Try to keep the forum discussion on topic though.

 

[Bones64]

Yeah I know its off topic, but with a game that focuses on different nations, I feel like in order to match up with games like COC its gotta have more nations. But I do hope that, at the very least, your idea is chosen, it seems to promote more teamwork and cooperation. The biggest flaw with clan wars is that most people don't even attack because there isn't any notion to cooperate. With this idea, not only do you have to work together in order to create an indestructible base, you have to work together to destroy the enemy's base. Also there is the risk of losing a good bit of resources, so they'll motivate a lot of players to attack or at least contribute to the base, whereas in clan wars its just for fun, you're not losing anything, so why attack. Hopefully this discussion will become more well known and the developers will notice this.
BTW just call me Bones

 

[Skillz]

Many things i noticed here but before anything i love this idea of discussing the alliance war and how to make it different and better.

I think that when "alliance wars" are (hopefully) added, instead of everyone having a war base they build out of their buildings (like Clash of Clans), their should be a "communal" war base. One or two buildings from each base on the alliance could be used to build the base, or the average base level of the alliance members could determine the level of the base. It could be stocked with a few resources from everyone's base as well. Troops could be donated to the base from anyone, although a troop donation limit could be added so the highest level members don't donate all of the best troops. A special "alliance headquarters" could be added that would be the main goal, with the average age in the alliance determining the age of the hq with the alliance's banner in the center. This is done so the alliances with like one guy in the industrial or enlightenment age while everyone else in the alliance being medieval age won't have an advantage over an alliance with everyone in the gunpowder age or something. The base would be nationless; however, to deter people from always picking Japan so their war base would be better protected,

So taking it one step at a time... First you discuss how a war in DomiNations could be different from Clash of Clans and also try to incorporate some reality into it which is great. I like the idea of a single base made by everyone but that would be way too complicated when you have some alliances with people from the top of the game and some new level players. The entire basis of this would be ruined. I think we should make it so that the alliance members have to make a base from scratch as in starting from the dawn age and upgrading everything using resources that are donated from each member of the alliance so have good and active members will be beneficial. I don't like the idea of storing the resources because then some players would feel as if their resources aren't being used by them. I would prefer to see each member putting resources into upgrading building and lets say they are already up to classical age and want to upgrade something that is extremely expensive but they don't have enough to upgrade it each member could donate and it would be like how the wonder is built where the resource is saved up into whatever building the player desires. This way each members choice will matter. He is not just sending resources into a mill or market for no reason whatsoever. Each member would feel that their resources are being used as they deem necessary.

Now to the donating aspect. I would like to see every member donate as many troops as possible and all the troops are stored in the alliance gate so in the war base the troops that come out will number an immense amount compared to normal where there are very few. The amount of troops will depend on every players ability to donate troops so this will cause everyone to want to upgrade their alliance gate in normal bases and help the war base be more defensive power because if we have 50 players attacking the same base we need a shitload of defense. I don't think you should limit the amount of troops donated by a higher member because lets face it the fact is in these types of game OFFENSE is always better then DEFENSE. The games are just designed that way to keep people playing since if defense was indeed stronger then no one would ever attack cause they could never win. So we need as much defense as possible. I don't think the war base would be nationless rather it should represent all the nations. My way would have every nation represented. They should be allowed to have troops from every nation in the alliance and have abilities from every nation in the alliance since it would represent the alliance as a whole. Again leading to the point of having more defensive power.

I see the war base not as a war base because then we would have to build an enormous base and that would get way too complicated because you would need to setup an entirely new base of coding to use a new size for the war bases. The way i see it is that this "war base" should be the representation of the entire strength of the entire alliance. I see it more of as if the war was against a "Fort" or a "Castle". Where every member is trying to raid and overtake the symbol of the other alliance strength or in other terms "Capital" of the alliance.

I don't like the special alliance headquarters idea or even the mean age of whatever. I think the war base should represent the knowledge and ability of every alliance so the war base can only be as strong as the strongest player in the alliance. For example, if the highest member in an alliance is in classical age then the war base should not be able to have anything higher then what he has. Since it represents the strength of the alliance it should not have more strength then the highest members for example it should not have defenses or troops from any upgrade or any sort of buildings higher then the strongest member.

It could be attacked Boom Beach's operation-style, with buildings staying destroyed and people taking turns attacking. Replays could be done to see what people did, and the amount of health left on a building could be seen. The winner could be determined by percentage destroyed after a 24-hour period, and if the alliances tie, then either by the number of attacks or the combined time of the attacks, meaning speed and efficiency are key.
This would be more realistic and more like real wars. Real wars aren't singular nations attacking other single nations independently from other nations in an alliance. Real wars are nations attacking together, on the same battle front against the same enemy. WWI and WWII are good examples of this, Britain, France, and the USA attacking on the same front with one another against a common enemy. They didn't each attack a different nation, they attacked the same nation on the same front.
A good secondary feature would be able to attack simultaneously on the war base, as that again would be more realistic. Sadly; however, this would be extremely impractical because of lag and things, but it would be a cool feature to add nonetheless.
If you feel this is a good/bad idea, comment below. Any and all critism, critques, and agreements are encouraged. If enough people like it, we may see it in a future update!
-Happy Attacking!

I like the idea of players being able to attack in sync or even waiting and having the ability to replay and discuss how they could do better. This would prove to be another aspect of the tactics used in the wars. I like the idea of having the health remaining on a building even after an attack because in real life the building would not be fixed during a war rather it would be fixed after the war. I think it would be a great idea to have the war base not be able to heal for every attack. Rather when you are sieging a castle in real life the damage would stay after every attack. I don't like th idea of having the winner left up to the amount of time or attacks because this would cause some alliances to stop their members from attacking and getting the least amount of attacks= more efficient. I would rather see it in a way that when you attack a castle you get whatever you is inside the castle. Meaning if the alliance is able to destroy the castle they will gain all of the resources from inside the castle. However if you can't raid fully overtake a castle then you really shouldn't be able to receive anything from inside it. It does not matter if it ends in a tie with both castles being destroyed, you will gain whatever is inside it and both sides will be victors. So 100% win or nothing which will give more of an edge to a defensive base because remember when you get to 50 attacks on same base it will be very unlikely to be unable to defeat it. Especially when you consider maxed players with max troops. The idea of games like this is that Max troops always are better then Max defenses to keep players from playing. This is why in clash of clans champion league has player with 100 wins and 3 defensive wins a season.

I love the idea of simultaneously attacking and this would be another way to differentiate the game. The fact is i don't think this would actually cause so much lag. I think devices these days have enough power to handle almost anything that a computer can handle so this is not something to worry about. In my opinion this is a very practical idea and would be very realistic because no alliance attacks separately. However since not all members of an alliance will be able to attack at once we would need to be able to have the option to attack simultaneously, attack while another attack already in place, and even attack after the attack is complete.

Apologies for the long message i have a lot more to say but i will post this and start my comments on the second post in this thread so not to keep one post way too large that no one wants to read.

 

[Skillz]

1. When creating the communal base, would players have to use mill and markets to keep the resources they donate or will the communal base be purely military buildings and walls?
2. Is there a way for the leader to edit other peoples contributions, since perhaps some people could be trolls and keep their part of the base open for the enemy. I know that this probably won't happen but you never know
3. For the communal base, how big will the area be, will it be like a normal city size, or will it be like in Boom Beach where the operations have giant areas for the bases
4. What would be the rules for wonders? Would only the leader be able to use them or will anyone be able.

1. With my idea the mills and markets are useless but they will provide an extra defense as it will be an extra building needed to be destroyed. So yes the mill and markets are important but i think the resources should be donated right into the building that needs to be upgraded. For example if something cost 1,000 gold and i donate 100. That should leave 900 to be donated from other players and would upgrade. Also i would rather not see time delays it takes to upgrade things in this basis or atlas cut the time much faster by having civilians from every nation go out to help them. For example lets say the tower needs 3 civilians. Every member of the alliance that has 3 civilians available could send those civilians to build the tower. This way every member that send the civilians would lead the upgrade to be halved in the amount of time it takes allowing an alliance to build a "Castle" much faster.
2. With my idea the leader would not need to edit the players contributions since the members are only submitting the resources and civilians instead of donating actual buildings. This way the problem with who controls what is eliminated and rather the leader can just move around structure to form a well defended castle.
3. Again having a bigger base is not always wiser idea. I think the size of the base should correlate the the size of the base of the player who has the biggest base. The base should not be better in any ways then they strongest player in any aspect. If the biggest base in the alliance is 12 squares of forest then the "Castle" should not be bigger then 12 squares. Each time the actual base cuts down another square of forest the war base could be upgraded. This way people don't just reject their actual bases.
4. I think the wonders would kind of be useless in a war scenario because in my idea the "Castle" is in fact a representation of the power each base holds. Building a wonder would be actually going against this but either way it would not matter. I say everyone would pick defensive wonders in this case scenario and if it increases the defense then i am all for it. So the point being that every wonder that has been build by any member of the alliance could be built in the castle.

I really like this idea, but I have a few questions and a few ideas:
Ideas:
1. I think that the leaders nation should be the communal bases nation, by that I mean the architecture and cosmetics should be like the leaders nation just to spice up the bases, i.e if the alliance leader is Japanese, the communal base should have Japanese architecture and so on.
2. I think that the leader should be able to use more items for their contribution, like using more towers, walls, mills etc since they are the alliance leader. But not that much such that it's broken but enough that its significant
3. I feel like if for alliance wars we are given a huge area for the communal base, each player can use their town center and buildings to create minor cities while the leader, like stated above, can use more items and their town center, which would be the alliance headquarters, would be significantly stronger and perhaps be able to spawn units and shoot at attackers. Basically, the leader can create a sort of capital within the base with the other players in the alliance creating mini cities so that it feels more like a war of civilizations.
4. Like in Boom Beach, where destroying buildings grants points, I believe that the alliance wars should have a point system, for example, destroying x number of buildings would generate 5 points, destroying the town center of mini cities created by non-leader players would generate 10 points, and destroying the alliance headquarters, or capital as I would like to call it, would generate 50 points. By the end of the war, points would be counted up and the highest wins. And if there is a draw, settle it like how you stated, with the deficiency or speed of the attacks.

These are my ideas, don't know if they're that good, but I feel like this would better improve on your idea. If you disagree, it doesn't matter since your idea by itself is good enough for alliance wars, I really hope Nexon or BigHuge Games implements this. This seems really unique and I can't wait for the massive battles and epic wars that will come from this if it was implemented. Just imagine the industrial age or modern age with the giant wards that might occur

1. As i was saying the "Castle" should represent the entire alliance not just the leader so it should have different building from all the nations from the alliance. Just placing the entire base on the leaders nation is actually a very bad idea. What if the leader is Roman but no body in the alliance likes the look of the romans buildings then that would not work out.
2. In my idea this problem is eliminated because every member is allowed to donate whatever they want or can. And building as much as the strongest player.
3. The idea of a town center is that it is the center. You can't very well have more then one town center. This defeats the purpose of it being the center.
4. The idea of points would not work in a historically based game. The fact is this game is quite realistic (Not 100% i give you but a lot). The best way to handle this as i already explained in my last post is 100% win or loss like any normal war in real life.

 

[Skillz]

Additions:
One thing I would like to add that I forgot to add before is like Clash of Clans, there should be a preparation day to set up the base and another day to attack it. Also, it would be cool if the alliance could "save" one or two bases so that they don't always have to remake the whole base over each time they want to attack, and changes could be made if people leveled up, got better defenses, etc.

Ok so now on to the third post. From here i do like the time period of having a preparation day but i think in reality this can be done a bit better.
In reality if your castle was destroyed it would need to be built again. So i think after a war everything that has been destroyed would need to be built again in the same manner as i stated before. By having all the members donate resources and civilians to build everything. This way the buildings wouldn't take that long to upgrade. (Also great way from the developers to make money is to let players buy as many civilians as they want with crowns. NO LIMIT. In reality anything that is destroyed must be built again but it does not necessarily have to built from scratch. Meaning if the "Castle" has been built up to the Classical age then you won't need to build everything starting from the dawn age. Instead you only need to spend the resources required to build the entire "Castle" from he beginning of the current level of each building.

This would allow each alliance to have as much time as they need to prepare for a war. Then once they are ready with the base design and they have built whatever they desire. The war should begin. No Nation in my mind would declare war and then say ok lets prepare for war Hehehe. The preparation should be done before starting the war. The war should begin as soon as it is declared.

Now you might be thinking that the problem with my idea is the amount of resources it would take to actually build it again and again and again after every war. The fact is this could be easily solved in many different ways. To create a special building in the "castle" or using the Wonders we could store all the resources that it took the build your base. After the war the winner would receive those resources and since the war would be with similar level alliances the resources should equal the amount it took to build the actual "Castle". Then any loot received could be extra to the actual bases by whatever the developers deem necessary. For example, the loot could be spread on the achievement basis. Amount of troops killed or amount of buildings destroyed, general killed, town center destroyed. Although i can see problems with this way of splitting the loot i honestly can not think of a better way.

Apologies that was so damn long. But i put my honest thoughts in here and i hope it becomes useful as it took a good amount of time to clearly explain everything in detail.

 

[Outatime]

Thanks for the feedback Skillz!
I think your ideas are great, but I want to comment on a few of them.

1. I don't think the idea of having the alliance build their war base from scratch is a good idea. That means that newer alliances won't have many defenses so the wars would be pretty short. I think a better way of doing it would be to have the average age of the alliance at the inception of the alliance or of wars govern the "starting age" of the castle. Then the base can continue to grow from there, with your idea of people donating resources (mainly gold, duh) to upgrade buildings, walls, etc.
2. There should be specific "war citizens" so that people don't have to donate their own citizens. I know and many people can agree that citizens are something that are always needed, and to donate 3 of your citizens to upgrade one of the base's tower to level 6. The number of citizens would be like how many given per age, like having 10 if the base is in the classical age.
3. I don't think that both sides should be able to win, especially resources. Historically, if a nation lost a war, they usually lost of resources with it, meaning why should they get resources at all? If a side wins, they win, that's it, war's over. What I meant by efficiency of attacks is that if there's a tie in percentage of destruction or number of buildings destroyed, then whoever used fewer attacks to get ot that point wins. The alliance is always better off trying to send more people out so that doesn't happen instead of telling people they can't attack(unless 100% is destroyed, than what's the point anyway?)
4. What I meant about lag issues is not the phone lagging, but the game. If two people attack, and they both have 50 guys on the field at once, and there are 50 defenders from garrisons, stables, hidden defenders, donations, etc., that's already 150 troops on the battle field. It would be hard for the game to keep up with both players attacking different buildings, with each troop's unique AI to deal with, along with rallies, sabotages, etc. If you ever spectate a Boom Beach attack, you may notice it's a few seconds behind than reality, why? because there is natural lag caused by the distances data has to travel. This issue is multiplied when there are two players attacking AND technically spectating the other player. If someone destroys a building, the other player may not know as it is still there on his screen so he'll try to attack it, but it's gone in the server and other player's server, so the game won't know what to do. Now, if you multiply that by the 100 or so other almost identical attacks going on, you can see the issue. That is why it isn't practical, although it would be cool

You have to remember this is a game, lol, and a game like this has to be simple to learn but fun to play. Even though it is realistic, it is still a game, so it may be better to be a little unrealistic for the sake of simplicity and having fun. It's a great game and hopefully this idea will make it even better.

Thanks again Skillz!

 

[Skillz]

1. I don't think the idea of having the alliance build their war base from scratch is a good idea. That means that newer alliances won't have many defenses so the wars would be pretty short. I think a better way of doing it would be to have the average age of the alliance at the inception of the alliance or of wars govern the "starting age" of the castle. Then the base can continue to grow from there, with your idea of people donating resources (mainly gold, duh) to upgrade buildings, walls, etc.
2. There should be specific "war citizens" so that people don't have to donate their own citizens. I know and many people can agree that citizens are something that are always needed, and to donate 3 of your citizens to upgrade one of the base's tower to level 6. The number of citizens would be like how many given per age, like having 10 if the base is in the classical age.
3. I don't think that both sides should be able to win, especially resources. Historically, if a nation lost a war, they usually lost of resources with it, meaning why should they get resources at all? If a side wins, they win, that's it, war's over. What I meant by efficiency of attacks is that if there's a tie in percentage of destruction or number of buildings destroyed, then whoever used fewer attacks to get ot that point wins. The alliance is always better off trying to send more people out so that doesn't happen instead of telling people they can't attack(unless 100% is destroyed, than what's the point anyway?)
4. What I meant about lag issues is not the phone lagging, but the game. If two people attack, and they both have 50 guys on the field at once, and there are 50 defenders from garrisons, stables, hidden defenders, donations, etc., that's already 150 troops on the battle field. It would be hard for the game to keep up with both players attacking different buildings, with each troop's unique AI to deal with, along with rallies, sabotages, etc. If you ever spectate a Boom Beach attack, you may notice it's a few seconds behind than reality, why? because there is natural lag caused by the distances data has to travel. This issue is multiplied when there are two players attacking AND technically spectating the other player. If someone destroys a building, the other player may not know as it is still there on his screen so he'll try to attack it, but it's gone in the server and other player's server, so the game won't know what to do. Now, if you multiply that by the 100 or so other almost identical attacks going on, you can see the issue. That is why it isn't practical, although it would be cool

You have to remember this is a game, lol, and a game like this has to be simple to learn but fun to play. Even though it is realistic, it is still a game, so it may be better to be a little unrealistic for the sake of simplicity and having fun. It's a great game and hopefully this idea will make it even better.

1. With my idea remember every member can send civilians to help upgrade the buildings in the war base and upgrading is only a one time thing. Once they have reached the max level of the building that the strongest member has they don't need to be upgraded anymore just rebuilt. They will only need to be upgraded when the member also upgrades his in the real base.

Ok so you imply that newer alliances would have less defenses and therefore the wars would be short. I think either you might have misunderstood or i didn't state it clearly enough. Basically lets say i am a maxed Classical age and everyone else in my alliance is a Iron age. The war base can only be as big and strong as my base as i am the strongest person in the alliance. Also if there is someone that has opened up more spaces of forest then me then the base would be the size of that persons base. That way the alliance would not have less defenses unless the strongest person in the alliance was actually really weak. However, if the strongest person in the alliance is weak then it stands to show that the war base should not be that strong because then they will never win since they should be matched with an even"ishh" opponent. This way the wars are evenly matched with the strength of the alliance. In a way of everyone building their own buildings in the Castle then no one would ever win since it would just be too big.

2. I agree that citizens are extremely important, useful, and very limited resources. However, have war citizens would just eliminate the point of it being the Castle of a join alliance. If it had war citiziens then it could be a nation of its own. I think if you think in terms of reality, the citizens in a castle are always sent to that castle to build it, improve it by the founding nations. So in this case i think we should stick with my idea of sending our citizens to the Castles to do work. Now i can understand why a lot of people would think this is no good because they will lose time since they need civilians to do their upgrades. I agree that civilians are extremely important since i am only in classical age and i really want to upgrade however you have to remember that every member would be able to donate civilians. For example, let say that we are building the Ballista Tower(Defense Building In Classical) age that cost 125,000 gold and take 1 day to build with 3 civilians. Now I as the leader would start the building off with lets say 25,000 gold or whatever amount i can. Then the rest of the members would donate the gold in order to upgrade it. Once the building has enough resources it would then require civilians.
At this point is where I or anyone in the alliance would send 3 civilians to the Ballista tower. Normally this would take 1 day to upgrade. However, if another member send 3 civilians the time drops to 12 hours. Then another member send 3 civilians the time drops to 6. Another member send it drops to 3 hours-->1.5 hours-->45 minutes-->22 minutes-->11 minutes-->5.5 minutes-.. As you can see the time it normally takes a Ballista Tower to build has just gone from 1 day to almost a few minutes with about 10 people donating. Imagine if lets say 20-50 people donated civilians every upgrade or rebuilding would be done almost instantaneously. So no one would lose civilians.

3. The way your are thinking of the war is a little different then how i am thinking of it. You think if someone loses the war the entire nation must suffer. But in my idea the war base is in fact a "Castle" meaning that losing a castle might not affect the entire nation much if at all but to an attacking nation gaining a castle could mean a lot of resources. This is why my idea said 100% or nothing because you have to remember this is 50 people attacking the same base. Just try to understand that. 50 people attacking the same base and the buildings are not healing during wartime. Troops are not coming back to life during the wartime. In my idea there is no need to complicate anything about ties. It all ends up with whether you win or you lose. The fact is the winners receive the resources and the winners who cannot siege a castle will not be able to get any. This is a great way of motivating everyone to actually win the war.

4. I am not really sure of what to say to this because i am not exactly an expert in this. From what i know AI coding is able to be read by machines very quickly and very fast. Im not sure of the impact of so many AI because of the speed that machines can read AI at so i am not sure. However once the coding is written i believe the job is left to the devices not the coding. So the devices are the ones that cause the lag as they just don't have the power to be able to read that much code at that speed. But as more and more devices are gaining increased power i think this wouldn't be a problem but as i said i am not really knowledgeable in this area.

Its a game? What are you smoking man!!! THIS IS NO GAME.. THIS IS LIFE. You must see DomiNations, You must Breathe DomiNations, You must Dream DomiNations, Live DomiNations, Dominate DomiNations.

 

[Drifting death]

I just want to put these out there as ideas this is not to say your ideas are wrong and are not better is just a variation I want to put in the mix. ---------------------------------------------- I think that if they go along the lines of civ which is part of there design now, they would use maps that reset say every month or so, you battle it out for control as an alliance with a few other alliances at random for a start. This doesn't have to be a big variation from the main game the map just shows your progress the ratio of map you control is related to the number of battles in the game you win but the ratio you hold effects rewards you get. So one gold player that spams his army does not win the map on his own it would need to be a team effort in some way. Maybe a max per player per day that count so it has to be a team win. If your control expanded like culture did in civ so higher points than a neighbour pushes back there territory or vice versa. 2. If you want a more 1 v 1 approach then on the borders of your territory where you meet a rival alliance, battles over map sections can occur the game could pick a player from each alliance to take part in the battle its a battle of points the highest scoring player wins the map section. If the game wants to be just tactical and skill it will give each player battling the same units choices and defences it just their layout and tactics that decide the battle this could be pre programmed into the map each sector has its own load out so the battles are always fair. So a players level has no relevance. As for who the game picks as this is is a fair fight it can be anyone that's on can take on a battle each team can play there half at any time but until both sides have battled the sector remains in war mode. I would say the match system could be run in many different ways but what's important is that the battles are balanced the game could even lock the defences of the city under attack and its just the units picked for the battle by the attacker and their tactics that decide the outcome, as a player needs to see the map to be able to select their units then I would like the game to show them the map before they pick their units and they just get to pick any units up to that maps max army size including mercenaries. It would be good if one team has to go first and their score gets posted for the other team to see, but not the battle. Or the battle just run at the same time the game just matches two players that are on and the battle starts the time and prep time is the same for both they battle the score decides the outcome. The actual map just adds prestige to an alliance and boost to there main game, possibly resources, items they can purchase units with but the main rewards need to be just ranking in the game. What this game doesn't need is ways for players to get permanent advantages over other alliances or players. Temporary boosts or special blessings fine as they are just a short effect. So the map doesn't limit the matches so your not against the same team or player all the time the map can be made in lots of ways 1. Its divided equally each reset to every player or alliance.-------------------------------------- 2. You can be matched with any alliance for a battle the map re shuffles to show your increased territory so its the losing alliance that loses a section of map where ever on the map that is that section changes colour to your alliance. ------------------------------------------ 3. I think it should be on a per player map for each alliance they each get a set number of attacks per day. This expands or reduces there sector control and so there alliances over all area of control. If this was over a long duration say the month then no player can be knocked out if they lose all there map sections they just get reduced to one. If the number of map sections they have dictated the number of battles they can have per day. This would let players and alliances see who is good who is bad. So your performance dictates how many battles you can fight and lets strong players see other strong players the game could also be setup to match players with similar size maps fight each other so strong players are blocked by rules from hitting weaker players.

 

[Bones64]

So Drifiting, your idea is that there is campaign style map of something, lets say America, with multiple alliances having a starting territory and then battling ai bases for neutral territory, if a player wins the battle then can edit the base in such a way that its better defended with the help of other players, after a few hours the entire map will be conquered by different alliances, from there the alliances battle the player created bases in order to gain control of that particular territory. After a fixed number of hours the war ends and which ever alliance holds the most territory wins a considerable amount of resources, with second and third place earning smaller amounts.

From this I like this idea, although it isn't the communal base me and Outatine wanted, but it does seem to hold potential for being rather unique all the same. The major problem for the communal base was the age balancing as well as programming since it might not be possible to program something as massive as the communal base, however with your idea it seems achievable since the developers wont' need to program much, since it seems to be COC like in how the bases are set up, so programming that wouldn't be that overwhelming since it has been done before. But the one problem is balancing the players/ages but I think you manage to solve that (still don't completely understand the 1v1 principle, sorry for that).

The choices for maps is relatively easy to do since the devs can use maps of the real world, i.e a map of America, a map of Europe, map of Asia and so on. Moreover, they can focus on individual countries or places, like a map of Britain or a map of China or Japan. So original ideas for the maps shouldn't be that hard to figure out.

Actually, we can combine both Outatine and Dritings ides, we can have that campaign style system like how Drifiting wanted, and we can use the communal base by that of the starting territory of each alliance, they should make the starting territory slightly larger so that the alliance members can work together to create their "capital" base, with the leader taking control for defending said base during the war, since its the capital not only will it take teamwork to create a fortress, but Boom-Beach type teamwork to siege it (using the buildings stay destroyed mechanic.). After the "preparation" stage of creating the capital base and discussing tactics for conquering, the actual war starts with each alliance attacking neutral territories that are adjecent to the captial base, fighting ai generated cities. After conquering the base, that territory will gain a small "shield" perhaps for an hour, so that whoever participated in the attack will be able to team up to create a defensive base in that territory, with the leader having the final say if the base is good enough. This will continue until all the neutral territory has been conquered, from which alliances will then wage war for the other alliance controlled territories for a chance to conquer it, once it's been conquered, the same concept of those participating in the attack creating the base will apply. When the war is over, the alliance with the most score wins the war. Score will be calculated by various factors, like how much territory an alliance holds and if they captured an opposing alliances' capital base, with capturing an alliances capital yielding more score since, well its their capital. Once the scores have been calculated, the first, second and third place alliances will get resource awards, with perhaps the first place getting a significant amount and some crowns split among the players, and second and third place, getting substantial amount of resources. As for age and player balancing, I would use Outatine's idea of age balancing, by finding the mean age.

Anyway, that's my opinion, feel free the comment. Hopefully this alliance war will become a reality.

 

[Drifting death]

Thanks for the feed back
The 1v1 is on a individual map square. As a player in an alliance taking part. First I enter into the active pool when I click to view the map its like entering a holding room, next I select a map section I wish to try to win for my alliance. The game then auto selects an appropriate player to battle with. Now to level the game its a points match we both attack the same base with the same units number and boosts the player that does the best wins it. The game selects the base and its defences at random.-------------
Option 2. For the map no 1v1 we just hit bases setup by the game each map section is different and has city's set up by the game each player gets a set amount of attacks or this can be set on an alliance level so each alliance gets the same number of attacks.
Each map has pre set units types and numbers. players can view the city then select their units. This levels the game and the winning team is the one with the most wins and so largest map area.
When we start hitting other teams bases like you say we again get 2 options. Option 1 the defences in the section of the map are static as are the unit numbers that we can use just like the team that captured it, if we want to take it, we need to better the score they got when they captured it. ------------- the second option is as occupier you get a set amount of improvements you can do, to improve the defences in a map section you control. But if the attacking team still win you lose the map section and the new team get to improve the defences again a bit like supercell boom beach resource islands. They get harder to retake each time. You lost it........
....

 

[Drifting death]

I have been thinking about this as this is an important aspect yet to be added. I do think an actual map is needed and that it needs 1v1 in some way. So I think my idea needs a small mod. We need a ranking system for alliances so we have battles with a few alliances on a map. The battles for bare map sections are the games way of allowing us to spread out on the map we battle the sections one by one expanding our territory until we hit a rival alliance this is when we need 1v1 battles if a player from our team selects an enamy alliance map square. We attack it if we beat the defence we take it and the game gives that map section a set upgrade. But we can arrange the buildings and defence as we see fit. This may be only possible by ranking officers. Then if the rival team hits back and wins we lose the section and the map upgrades again. If each player in a team gets a set number of attacks per day then its down to player skill and target selection. At the end of the event alliances are ranked and rewarded and the ranking is used to help the game to select which teams fight together in these events. If the game makers want to re enforce the leagues they use in game battles to change the scores in the alliance battles so the map is just an overview of battles in the game. So winning in app make your alliance do better. In the map events. I so the areas that an alliance control on the map have direct relation the there win lose score from the game. So its just adding a graphical show. If they want to be really mix it up they could mix both systems so the map out side events is live to normal in app battles and you have events as well where you can directly battle over area with rival alliances and this area carries back into the game. The rewards are resources in the game the bigger the area the bigger the income the team gets from it. So the maps are live all the time but events or wars events give alliances chance to battle section by section with each section having a upgrade boom beach resource base, type upgrade. If they wanted to spice maps up a bit like boom beach some map sections have greater value to the team in score and resources.

 

[Gaitchs Gangmei]

Nexom is dead and wouldn't participate themselves on the forums.. they are out their developing new games to churn out cash instead of supporting their costumers