New war time bounty...

[Godsend9701]

i came up with what i think is a good idea, shoot me down if you wish..

i was thinking when 2 or more alliances are at war with each other, any and all bounty earned while attacking should go to the HQ.

someone said It would stop an unfair advantage u get in being the agressor

havnt really thought of any down falls as of yet just thought i would throw it out there.


Godsend......

 

[Alcibiades]

Money going to the HQ is a complete and utter waste without a fully functioning HQ, with useful units. It'll just sit there and be wasted.

Possibly money would be evenly divided between the entire alliance to cut down on abuse?

 

[Godsend9701]

i dont think it would be wasted, you need funds to start devs so you can buy those HQ troops, yes?

 

[Twigley]

By the time bounty wars are going on, alliances will of completed all usefull HQ techs.

 

[Alcibiades]

By the time bounty wars are going on, alliances will of completed all usefull HQ techs.

Yup. Especially the alliances who'll be declaring 'serious' wars with lots of bounty being exchanged (useful amounts that is, not piddly amounts).

 

[BuBbLeS]

i think it could work but not with the way the HQs are at the moment. some changes to make the HQ a bit better make this more attractive.

 

[timtadams]

I dont disagree with the suggestion, i think its alright

btw, I thought there were wars going on now? Or have alliances not actually declared war? Because i dont think any alliances have finished all their alliance development, i which case the idea is useful. However, i do still think its usefulness is limited

WHAT IF....
All bounty gained increased, to something like 100% of units killed?!
This would give the agressors more advantage, which is desirable when considering a resistance...

 

[Godsend9701]

I dont disagree with the suggestion, i think its alright

btw, I thought there were wars going on now? Or have alliances not actually declared war? Because i dont think any alliances have finished all their alliance development, i which case the idea is useful. However, i do still think its usefulness is limited

WHAT IF....
All bounty gained increased, to something like 100% of units killed?!
This would give the agressors more advantage, which is desirable when considering a resistance...

were talking about a war not a resistance, completely different

 

[Alcibiades]

I dont disagree with the suggestion, i think its alright

btw, I thought there were wars going on now? Or have alliances not actually declared war? Because i dont think any alliances have finished all their alliance development, i which case the idea is useful. However, i do still think its usefulness is limited

WHAT IF....
All bounty gained increased, to something like 100% of units killed?!
This would give the agressors more advantage, which is desirable when considering a resistance...

Umm, if any of the top three haven't completed the valuable HQ techs, then they wouldn't be top three. And with the cap on HQ units, it's increasingly irrelevant as time goes by.

Second idea is not so bad, although is does seem to increase the punishment of rank 1 ally inordinately. Being rank 1 should not be something people don't want because they're going to lose it immediately. And with multiple alliances versus 1, if organized properly, there's already a big disadvantage early round. Later round, I could see this being more useful once one ally has run away with the round exponentially.

 

[timtadams]

Well if the bounty was based on the differences in score than i think it would be more fair. So if the alliance declaring was was bigger, there would be no change. If the alliance declaring war was half the size of the alliance, then maybe double bounty (or increase it to 50%). Sorry, im kinda thinking out loud here, and dont actually know what the max normally is.