First off, in my opinion mercenaries should be " enlisted" in the alliance they are fighting for.
Then, alliance A vs B have their war, with the removal of the bashing rule and the cooldown period after ceasefire , as is proposed here above.

it's only normal to assume the merc will want to leave the alliance, once hostilities end. however he is still bound to the no attack rule, during the cooldown, as he was present with one of the parties at that time. (no clue how you enforce that)

then a question;
imagine a situation where two alliances want to wage war against a mutual enemy, 3rd alliance?
same rules, sure, but is alliance hopping between the two allowed under those rules?
and for further arguments sake, imagine the stab in the back tactic, where, after 3rd alliance has been defeated, alliance 1 & 2 want to turn on each other, do they wait out or have to wait out the cooldown too?

I suppose it would be self enforcing. If you are attacked for instance, 6 times in one day with no ongoing war, it's up to you to report that infringement. The same would have to apply.

I can't see that if a single or even multiple players wanted to change sides that it would really matter. It is the alliances that are at war. If they leave one alliance, join the other, then that would be their own choice. Obviously, those players would make a few enemies. After a war has ended and the requisite amount of time passes, then they would seriously have to watch their backs, lol.

That last point, Two alliances on the same side, waging war against a third party, the war ceases. They then turn on each other, then I would suggest that this is okay. The warring parties are different. A + B versus C, C surrenders. C is out of bounds to both A and B and all their members. A declares war on B, it's a new war, the rules start again for those two sides. If a player from C jumps ship, joins alliance A or B, then that is also okay.

Complicated. Ultimately it's down to the alliances, they are the ones at war. If a player is a member of an alliance, then the rules apply to them. As soon as you leave an alliance, you are independent or join your former enemy, then what is applicable to the alliance you are in over rides everything else.

To be honest what are the reasons alliance's go to war for in first place most of time its a falling out with two people me personally there's no point in war has most people go for ur fleet in war or not most attack for profit personally this discussion should be how make war worth it.once we have this discussion then have a discussion on rules of war at moment there's end result for war only the lifting of the bashing rule

Regardless of the reasons, wars are part of the game. Whilst they are part of the game, we should suggest ways to make them fairer. The points I raised previously would basically stop the declarations of war unless they are really needed. IF you declare war and another side surrenders, then after 24 hours, you would not be able to declare again or even attack a member of the opposing alliance for a whole month. No raiding, no attacking, no launching of missiles, nada, zilch, nothing.

So, wars would be a last ditch declaration. Something to be feared. IF you declare, you have only a limited period to do what you want to do, otherwise you would have to wait for that month to pass.

And they very good rules oz but still if u go to war it has mean something a end result which at moment u can do in or not a war setting

I think you are missing the point Micky.

A declaration of war should be the final straw, the ultimate sanction. Not something issued just like that.

This way wars will not be declared unless it is the final option available.

If you do declare war, at its conclusion any hostilities whatsoever will not be tolerated in any shape or form for a whole month.

This will stop wars from being declared at the drop of a hat. Just because someone wants to bash.

mightyoz wrote:IF you declare war and another side surrenders, then after 24 hours, you would not be able to declare again or even attack a member of the opposing alliance for a whole month. No raiding, no attacking, no launching of missiles, nada, zilch, nothing.

So, wars would be a last ditch declaration. Something to be feared. IF you declare, you have only a limited period to do what you want to do, otherwise you would have to wait for that month to pass.

Can I just say, for fleeters, this pretty much entirely defeats the point of the game. No serious fleeter is going to agree to those terms or ever declare war again if these rules were in effect. And then war would be meaningless for a different reason.

Pulsar wrote:

mightyoz wrote:IF you declare war and another side surrenders, then after 24 hours, you would not be able to declare again or even attack a member of the opposing alliance for a whole month. No raiding, no attacking, no launching of missiles, nada, zilch, nothing.

So, wars would be a last ditch declaration. Something to be feared. IF you declare, you have only a limited period to do what you want to do, otherwise you would have to wait for that month to pass.

Can I just say, for fleeters, this pretty much entirely defeats the point of the game. No serious fleeter is going to agree to those terms or ever declare war again if these rules were in effect. And then war would be meaningless for a different reason.

im a fleeter, actully thats all my points lol , maybe revise the idea. how about instead of a month its like, if the war last 1 week then at the end its a 1 week no go, if it last 2 weeks its a 2 week no go and so on....as a fleeter i dont mind the idea as i will give them time to build another fleet for me to crash. and for example after this last war with vallhalla days after we still recieved many ipms from thor and company. some ppl doesnt handle losses well i guess but still it war ends there is always a time period of peace, i think it would work well in game. not everyone has or had a 9 mil fleet so they need time to rebuild and be honest here, not many wars is called anyway. real wars that is

Okay Pulsar, King, how many wars have you both played active parts in recently. Say the last year?

I know King you have been in the recent AZGD Vs Valhalla War. But apart from that? Possibly for you King this is too early a question as I believe you are relatively new to the game. But if not you, the alliance that you are now in?

Pulsar, you have played various servers, now plying your trade in a different one to the one you played more recently. But the question is the same.

Also, in the last year, personally, as players, how many times have you hit the same target 5 times and wished it was more?



The point is, unless you declare a war, then all your usual options are open to you. The 5 X hitting one target in 24 hours applies still, UNLESS you are part of an alliance that has declared war. Until the other party surrenders or your own alliance does then you have an unlimited amount of time to hit the opposition MORE than 5 times. If they surrender straight from the outset, then you are limited to 24 hours. Then nothing for a month.

So, unless war is declared then you play the game as per normal. Fleeting, raiding etc, all remains the same.

These suggestion just means that there might be a reluctance to declare war unless it's deemed absolutely essential.
The normal rules would apply otherwise.

The other point is, this lets players have a time to build up or rebuild. So, as a fleeter Pulsar, surely the waiting of this time period would be beneficial? The fleet might be greater in size. Also when players have had a period of relative calm they do become a little more relaxed. It mught be easier for you to fleet even bigger targets?

ive been in many big wars as the forums will show if u read back however thats not the topic. i agree with all you say oz except the one month free time. if the war only last 1 week why would they get 1 month to rebuild? i think it should go by how long the war was. i mean u could go to war then surrender 5 hrs later and have 1 month free time. doesnt make sense there, everything else seems good though. i mean you have a good idea here ujst need to twek it some