One thing that would really help allies and coalition members be able to fight together more effectively, especially in AvA games, would be an option for allies to pay to construct unit support buildings in an ally's provinces. Buildings like airstrips, infrastructure, and bunkers would be most helpful. Especially in maps like Team Up, where many of your "allies" go inactive, and you often get frustrated about not being able to move your planes in their territory. The cost of building in an ally's territory could be 25 to 50 percent higher than it would be to build that building in your own territory. This feature would only be available to players who have Share Map with each other.
Please log in to post a reply.
There is already something like this where you can pay for your ally's construction time using gold. Unfortunately, it requires a premium account or just doesn't work for me. Overall though I think this is a good idea to expand coalition features.
Apparently you need paid gold for that. So weird, discriminating on how you even got it…
Oh that's bs, in Iron Order it's probably the same way since I have premium and plenty of gold but it doesn't work.
I don't see how this is needed. For active allies, you can just transfer them the stuff they need, and for inactive allies... well... who wants to support them anyway?Taffyta Muttonfudge wrote:
One thing that would really help allies and coalition members be able to fight together more effectively, especially in AvA games, would be an option for allies to pay to construct unit support buildings in an ally's provinces. Buildings like airstrips, infrastructure, and bunkers would be most helpful. Especially in maps like Team Up, where many of your "allies" go inactive, and you often get frustrated about not being able to move your planes in their territory. The cost of building in an ally's territory could be 25 to 50 percent higher than it would be to build that building in your own territory. This feature would only be available to players who have Share Map with each other.
I’d sure as hell like to build an airstrip so I can fly through them, though. Maybe at least for AI?K.Rokossovski wrote:
I don't see how this is needed. For active allies, you can just transfer them the stuff they need, and for inactive allies... well... who wants to support them anyway?Taffyta Muttonfudge wrote:
One thing that would really help allies and coalition members be able to fight together more effectively, especially in AvA games, would be an option for allies to pay to construct unit support buildings in an ally's provinces. Buildings like airstrips, infrastructure, and bunkers would be most helpful. Especially in maps like Team Up, where many of your "allies" go inactive, and you often get frustrated about not being able to move your planes in their territory. The cost of building in an ally's territory could be 25 to 50 percent higher than it would be to build that building in your own territory. This feature would only be available to players who have Share Map with each other.
They're inactive... conquer them. And yeah I know there is some unhinged event out there where you can't, but rather fix that then.
She also cited AVA games. And while it’s true that your not a decent alliance member if you go inactive without reason, it still doesn’t solve that.
When people go inactive in AvA games, it is fair to say you've already lost.
1. It would be kind of a pain to have to tell them the names of each province needed, then they have to search them up, then you need to calc resources and transfer. It's about saving time.K.Rokossovski wrote:
I don't see how this is needed. For active allies, you can just transfer them the stuff they need, and for inactive allies... well... who wants to support them anyway?
2.
Taffyta Muttonfudge wrote:
Especially in maps like Team Up, where many of your "allies" go inactive, and you often get frustrated about not being able to move your planes in their territory.
Um you'd get people spamming lvl 1 infrastructure in cities to team sabotage
How would that be sabotage?
The enemy moved slightly faster I guess?
So enemies benefit from infra now? That's a new one
Has been like that for a while.
What I'm tryna say is that Infrastructure is kinda useless when you could be building something else e.g industry/recruiting stations
Si you’d be sabotaging allies by forcing them to build infrastructure instead of something useful? I’m sure you’d just have the power to cancel it if you want, to be fair.
I've thought about some type of international zone or communal provinces/armies. International zones would just be unclaimed provinces that anyone can enter, but if you attack the province the newspaper and AI will see it as a violent and unjust attack so your morale will drop significantly in return for a strategic location. Another idea is an expeditionary force which would be units produced by many countries into a coalition army which can be controlled by anyone in the alliance. It doesn't sound good now that I've written it out but just a thought since we're talking about allied functions.
Coalition armies sounds horrible, they would be far superioir to national armies because they would be controlled 24/7 and not suffer from human deficiencies like sleep.
K.Rokossovski wrote:
suffer from human deficiencies like sleep.
So are they good or bad? You say it's a horrible idea but then you describe its positives.
Please log in to post a reply.
