Under certain conditions, 3 day waiting period to conquer former alliance member village should be removed

  • I understand the reasoning behind preventing conquering of a former alliance member village. At the same time however, I think there are certain actions that should allow this. For example, if the player attacks a king or duke within the alliance. This way if you have someone who has been working against you the whole time and attacks, you have some means to get some revenge. An attack against a king or duke is intentional and should remove this restriction. Perhaps other conditions could be set as well, such as the attack needs to have a certain number of troops or something, but i can't really think of any reasons why this would be a bad thing.

  • Maytrix,


    You've never had to organise for your own player to attack a king or duke to move treasures out of the way in front of an incoming attack that you know you can't get the def in place in time?


    If you have a traitor in your midst, don't chief, just 0 pop.

  • That was an example VVV. I agree with Maytrix that there are a lot of situations where the 3days thing is just stupid, for instance:
    - A player in another alliance is within you borders and you, as a king, want to chief it? You have to attack him, kick him out of the borders and wait 3 days to chief him.
    - A player goes grey within your area? You have to wait 3days because he was in your alliance

  • - A player in another alliance is within you borders and you, as a king, want to chief it? You have to attack him, kick him out of the borders and wait 3 days to chief him.

    Is this still really in the game? We did this already on first com2 to prevent Alb from chiefing us and he already made a big fuzz about it earlier how it is exploiting the game. For some reason i had a picture in my mind that this would have been fixed already.


    Mayo_COM wrote:

    - A player goes grey within your area? You have to wait 3days because he was in your alliance

    This shouldn't happen. Imo even grey capitals should be chief-able, and without any cooldowns.

  • That was an example VVV. I agree with Maytrix that there are a lot of situations where the 3days thing is just stupid, for instance:
    - A player in another alliance is within you borders and you, as a king, want to chief it? You have to attack him, kick him out of the borders and wait 3 days to chief him.
    - A player goes grey within your area? You have to wait 3days because he was in your alliance

    The first case shouldn't happen. In this case political kingdom should count and not geographical kingdom. I know we had that issue in the past but I thought it was fixed. When have you observed this? If it still happens like this it's definitely a bug.


    The second case is not ideal and we want to do something about it. Even allowing the chiefing grey capitals as Jallu mentioned above would in most cases make a lot of sense. We just need to implement a few additional things to make that possible. Currently the game (and lobby/account system) can't properly deal with that case (in case the inactive player does come back after all).

  • 1 Question, if a player choose to leave, why cant alliance members get the first chance to take his villages?


    Another question, why the hell does a sitter need to wait 14 days to chief. Thats insane on a speed server.... Can it be set down to 7 days?

  • Maytrix,


    You've never had to organise for your own player to attack a king or duke to move treasures out of the way in front of an incoming attack that you know you can't get the def in place in time?


    If you have a traitor in your midst, don't chief, just 0 pop.

    Personally, I find that to be a cheap tactic. It's not much better then two alliances attacking each other back and forth to raise VP.


    But as I said, there could be stipulations in place that prevent it from being allowed under certain circumstances. If you are just attacking to move treasures, you aren't sending cats or rams and aren't sending your whole army either.


    0 pop is fine, but It think a better revenge is to conquer it and it is more beneficial.

  • Personally, I find that to be a cheap tactic.

    Moving treasures out of the way of attack? Why? I tear down treasuries weekly to dodge attacks on minor villages that can't be defended, don't see why i wouldn't ask governors to attack for treasures too if i can't demolish in time. You will just let your enemies get your treasures if you can't defend every treasury properly?