Who accepted & declined.?

When ppl are trying to ally end you see it taking a good few turns. So it would be good to add the option to see who accepted & declined so you don't waste ur time repeating the same thing.

When ppl are tired & bored they call for an ally end........Someone proposes a change so that the limit of alliances can be made. Some people decline the changes just to troll, so it would be nice to know who accepted & declined so you are not sitting there for like 3-7 turns just saying "Who is not accepting" & voting people off of the island just cos they have the least amount of SP. And when all that happens it just turns into a waiting game & is annoying & stupid & takes the fun out of this game.

You can tell next turn who accepts and who declines.

... or in same turn have a look at the diplomacy chart.

Kirjutas Columna Durruti, 01.05.2016 at 13:11

... or in same turn have a look at the diplomacy chart.

Ur not understanding me. Read it again.

Kirjutas Guest, 01.05.2016 at 13:01

You can tell next turn who accepts and who declines.

You cant.

Kirjutas DeepFriedUnicorn, 01.05.2016 at 13:17

Kirjutas Columna Durruti, 01.05.2016 at 13:11

... or in same turn have a look at the diplomacy chart.

Ur not understanding me. Read it again.

Diplomacy chart ALWAYS shows who is allied, at peace or at war; almost instantly (during ongoing turn).

You are right that it does not show whether someone didn't send peace or ally request, nor if a request was denied.
Does it really matter?

Btw. I'm against anything that facilitates ally-end, since war is the "natural" condition in this game called atWAR.

Kirjutas Columna Durruti, 01.05.2016 at 13:23

Kirjutas DeepFriedUnicorn, 01.05.2016 at 13:17

Kirjutas Columna Durruti, 01.05.2016 at 13:11

... or in same turn have a look at the diplomacy chart.

Ur not understanding me. Read it again.

Diplomacy chart ALWAYS shows who is allied, at peace or at war; almost instantly (during ongoing turn).

You are right that it does not show whether someone didn't send peace or ally request, nor if a request was denied.
Does it really matter?

Btw. I'm against anything that facilitates ally-end, since war is the "natural" condition in this game called atWAR.

When ppl are tired & bored they call for an ally end........Someone proposes a change so that the limit of alliances can be made. Some people decline the changes just to troll, so it would be nice to know who accepted & declined so you are not sitting there for like 3-7 turns just saying "Who is not accepting" & voting people off of the island just cos they have the least amount of SP. And when all that happens in just turns into a waiting game & is annoying & stupid & takes the fun out of this game.

I am also against this. How would you feel if you are the strongest player and have most sp. but then everybody in game is rallying to ally end because you are too strong. You can stall them by saying you support ally-ending but instead you decline the change in setting, so you can build more men to steamroll. Next you war everyone and win the game and don't have to share sp.

Kirjutas Guest, 01.05.2016 at 13:01

You can tell next turn who accepts and who declines.

Kirjutas Columna Durruti, 01.05.2016 at 13:11

... or in same turn have a look at the diplomacy chart.

this is not diplomacy related. He wants to know who accepted or declined to change settings.

Kirjutas Htin, 01.05.2016 at 14:15

I am also against this. How would you feel if you are the strongest player and have most sp. but then everybody in game is rallying to ally end because you are too strong. You can stall them by saying you support ally-ending but instead you decline the change in setting, so you can build more men to steamroll. Next you war everyone and win the game and don't have to share sp.

So you support a unethical form of diplomacy (secretly refusing to accept a change of game settings) because you don't want them to ally-fag against you? your argument is illogical and comes off as greedy.

Kirjutas Tundy, 01.05.2016 at 14:24

Kirjutas Htin, 01.05.2016 at 14:15

I am also against this. How would you feel if you are the strongest player and have most sp. but then everybody in game is rallying to ally end because you are too strong. You can stall them by saying you support ally-ending but instead you decline the change in setting, so you can build more men to steamroll. Next you war everyone and win the game and don't have to share sp.

So you support a unethical form of diplomacy (secretly refusing to accept a change of game settings) because you don't want them to ally-fag against you? your argument is illogical and comes off as greedy.

It makes the game more fun and have more variation. War is deception ~Sun Tzu
If Player knows the thought of other player, it would be plain boring.

Kirjutas Htin, 01.05.2016 at 16:06

Kirjutas Tundy, 01.05.2016 at 14:24

Kirjutas Htin, 01.05.2016 at 14:15

I am also against this. How would you feel if you are the strongest player and have most sp. but then everybody in game is rallying to ally end because you are too strong. You can stall them by saying you support ally-ending but instead you decline the change in setting, so you can build more men to steamroll. Next you war everyone and win the game and don't have to share sp.

So you support a unethical form of diplomacy (secretly refusing to accept a change of game settings) because you don't want them to ally-fag against you? your argument is illogical and comes off as greedy.

It makes the game more fun and have more variation. War is deception ~Sun Tzu
If Player knows the thought of other player, it would be plain boring.

That is a shit & reatard way to play the game. It becomes a waiting game & no longer AtWar.

Kirjutas DeepFriedUnicorn, 01.05.2016 at 17:09

Kirjutas Htin, 01.05.2016 at 16:06

Kirjutas Tundy, 01.05.2016 at 14:24

Kirjutas Htin, 01.05.2016 at 14:15

I am also against this. How would you feel if you are the strongest player and have most sp. but then everybody in game is rallying to ally end because you are too strong. You can stall them by saying you support ally-ending but instead you decline the change in setting, so you can build more men to steamroll. Next you war everyone and win the game and don't have to share sp.

So you support a unethical form of diplomacy (secretly refusing to accept a change of game settings) because you don't want them to ally-fag against you? your argument is illogical and comes off as greedy.

It makes the game more fun and have more variation. War is deception ~Sun Tzu
If Player knows the thought of other player, it would be plain boring.

That is a shit & reatard way to play the game. It becomes a waiting game & no longer AtWar.

It what you get for being a rp player. You could just hunt them down

Kirjutas Htin, 01.05.2016 at 18:24

Kirjutas DeepFriedUnicorn, 01.05.2016 at 17:09

Kirjutas Htin, 01.05.2016 at 16:06

Kirjutas Tundy, 01.05.2016 at 14:24

Kirjutas Htin, 01.05.2016 at 14:15

I am also against this. How would you feel if you are the strongest player and have most sp. but then everybody in game is rallying to ally end because you are too strong. You can stall them by saying you support ally-ending but instead you decline the change in setting, so you can build more men to steamroll. Next you war everyone and win the game and don't have to share sp.

So you support a unethical form of diplomacy (secretly refusing to accept a change of game settings) because you don't want them to ally-fag against you? your argument is illogical and comes off as greedy.

It makes the game more fun and have more variation. War is deception ~Sun Tzu
If Player knows the thought of other player, it would be plain boring.

That is a shit & reatard way to play the game. It becomes a waiting game & no longer AtWar.

It what you get for being a rp player. You could just hunt them down

Even in FFA's & GGS's the same thing happens.

Kirjutas DeepFriedUnicorn, 01.05.2016 at 18:34

Kirjutas Htin, 01.05.2016 at 18:24

Kirjutas DeepFriedUnicorn, 01.05.2016 at 17:09

Kirjutas Htin, 01.05.2016 at 16:06

Kirjutas Tundy, 01.05.2016 at 14:24

Kirjutas Htin, 01.05.2016 at 14:15

I am also against this. How would you feel if you are the strongest player and have most sp. but then everybody in game is rallying to ally end because you are too strong. You can stall them by saying you support ally-ending but instead you decline the change in setting, so you can build more men to steamroll. Next you war everyone and win the game and don't have to share sp.

So you support a unethical form of diplomacy (secretly refusing to accept a change of game settings) because you don't want them to ally-fag against you? your argument is illogical and comes off as greedy.

It makes the game more fun and have more variation. War is deception ~Sun Tzu
If Player knows the thought of other player, it would be plain boring.

That is a shit & reatard way to play the game. It becomes a waiting game & no longer AtWar.

It what you get for being a rp player. You could just hunt them down

Even in FFA's & GGS's the same thing happens.

Basically I am against way to make ally-end easier. I had a bad experience with all-fag , surrounding me. And I also believe at-warian has the right to privacy so they can hide their war plan. I don't want an easy game for ally-fags. Although some ppl don't have enough time to play, it's isn't my fault. This could be a game changer, if the troll out last the so call future leaver. This is AT-WAR!

Kirjutas Htin, 01.05.2016 at 19:10

Basically I am against way to make ally-end easier. I had a bad experience with all-fag , surrounding me. And I also believe at-warian has the right to privacy so they can hide their war plan. I don't want an easy game for ally-fags. Although some ppl don't have enough time to play, it's isn't my fault. This could be a game changer, if the troll out last the so call future leaver. This is AT-WAR!

People should know who is delaying the round, exploiting the system for your advantage is not "war'. Stop being a hypocrite.

Kirjutas DeepFriedUnicorn, 01.05.2016 at 14:14

When ppl are tired & bored they call for an ally end........Someone proposes a change so that the limit of alliances can be made. Some people decline the changes just to troll, so it would be nice to know who accepted & declined so you are not sitting there for like 3-7 turns just saying "Who is not accepting" & voting people off of the island just cos they have the least amount of SP. And when all that happens in just turns into a waiting game & is annoying & stupid & takes the fun out of this game.

OK. You added this to your initial statement. Now it is understandable. It is actually about changing game settings to allow more alliances than originally fixed.

Kirjutas Tundy, 01.05.2016 at 20:04

Kirjutas Htin, 01.05.2016 at 19:10

Basically I am against way to make ally-end easier. I had a bad experience with all-fag , surrounding me. And I also believe at-warian has the right to privacy so they can hide their war plan. I don't want an easy game for ally-fags. Although some ppl don't have enough time to play, it's isn't my fault. This could be a game changer, if the troll out last the so call future leaver. This is AT-WAR!

People should know who is delaying the round, exploiting the system for your advantage is not "war'. Stop being a hypocrite.

War is not always fair

Kirjutas Htin, 01.05.2016 at 20:25

War is not always fair

War is never fair, unless you put the generals or "commanders in chief" to duel each other.... and unarmed!

Kirjutas DeepFriedUnicorn, 01.05.2016 at 12:11

When ppl are trying to ally end you see it taking a good few turns. So it would be good to add the option to see who accepted & declined so you don't waste ur time repeating the same thing.

When ppl are tired & bored they call for an ally end........Someone proposes a change so that the limit of alliances can be made. Some people decline the changes just to troll, so it would be nice to know who accepted & declined so you are not sitting there for like 3-7 turns just saying "Who is not accepting" & voting people off of the island just cos they have the least amount of SP. And when all that happens it just turns into a waiting game & is annoying & stupid & takes the fun out of this game.

Make Each player in the game proposal the Ally Limit. there this should smoke them out.

Kirjutas Htin, 01.05.2016 at 20:25

Kirjutas Tundy, 01.05.2016 at 20:04

Kirjutas Htin, 01.05.2016 at 19:10

Basically I am against way to make ally-end easier. I had a bad experience with all-fag , surrounding me. And I also believe at-warian has the right to privacy so they can hide their war plan. I don't want an easy game for ally-fags. Although some ppl don't have enough time to play, it's isn't my fault. This could be a game changer, if the troll out last the so call future leaver. This is AT-WAR!

People should know who is delaying the round, exploiting the system for your advantage is not "war'. Stop being a hypocrite.

War is not always fair

which is why is hypocrite when you cry about ally-fags, but defend your shady tactics. The Game settings shouldn't be used as a weapon in your quest for easy SP, which is why we should know who accepts and declines setting changes. Most of the time settings are not changed because a player is afk or a low rank doesn't know how to accept the changes.

Kirjutas Columna Durruti, 01.05.2016 at 20:29

Kirjutas Htin, 01.05.2016 at 20:25

War is not always fair

War is never fair, unless you put the generals or "commanders in chief" to duel each other.... and unarmed!

That would also depend on rolls. Also if both attacker and defender dies the defender wins

Kirjutas Tundy, 01.05.2016 at 20:44

Kirjutas Htin, 01.05.2016 at 20:25

Kirjutas Tundy, 01.05.2016 at 20:04

Kirjutas Htin, 01.05.2016 at 19:10

Basically I am against way to make ally-end easier. I had a bad experience with all-fag , surrounding me. And I also believe at-warian has the right to privacy so they can hide their war plan. I don't want an easy game for ally-fags. Although some ppl don't have enough time to play, it's isn't my fault. This could be a game changer, if the troll out last the so call future leaver. This is AT-WAR!

People should know who is delaying the round, exploiting the system for your advantage is not "war'. Stop being a hypocrite.

War is not always fair

which is why is hypocrite when you cry about ally-fags, but defend your shady tactics. The Game settings shouldn't be used as a weapon in your quest for easy SP, which is why we should know who accepts and declines setting changes. Most of the time settings are not changed because a player is afk or a low rank doesn't know how to accept the changes.

how about loosing earned SP, u have life obligations, but u need to wait hour cause someone doesnt accepting ally end cause 100 SP or something, and its to far to kill him, or we would need like 3 hours to kill him, specialy in games without modern units like planes, like in Medieval wars, when u need hour just to get to America from middle east or something

World games are plagued with issues yet people still play them and whine...
just play proper games and enjoy the game, ie team games, 1v1 and smaller maps

Kirjutas Htin, 01.05.2016 at 20:25

Kirjutas Tundy, 01.05.2016 at 20:04

Kirjutas Htin, 01.05.2016 at 19:10

Basically I am against way to make ally-end easier. I had a bad experience with all-fag , surrounding me. And I also believe at-warian has the right to privacy so they can hide their war plan. I don't want an easy game for ally-fags. Although some ppl don't have enough time to play, it's isn't my fault. This could be a game changer, if the troll out last the so call future leaver. This is AT-WAR!

People should know who is delaying the round, exploiting the system for your advantage is not "war'. Stop being a hypocrite.

War is not always fair

It's not war it is a waiting game.

Kirjutas DeepFriedUnicorn, 02.05.2016 at 08:04

Kirjutas Htin, 01.05.2016 at 20:25

Kirjutas Tundy, 01.05.2016 at 20:04

Kirjutas Htin, 01.05.2016 at 19:10

Basically I am against way to make ally-end easier. I had a bad experience with all-fag , surrounding me. And I also believe at-warian has the right to privacy so they can hide their war plan. I don't want an easy game for ally-fags. Although some ppl don't have enough time to play, it's isn't my fault. This could be a game changer, if the troll out last the so call future leaver. This is AT-WAR!

People should know who is delaying the round, exploiting the system for your advantage is not "war'. Stop being a hypocrite.

War is not always fair

It's not war it is a waiting game.

You win without fighting~ Sun Tzu
A good slowroll.

Kirjutas Columna Durruti, 01.05.2016 at 13:23

Kirjutas DeepFriedUnicorn, 01.05.2016 at 13:17

Kirjutas Columna Durruti, 01.05.2016 at 13:11

... or in same turn have a look at the diplomacy chart.

Ur not understanding me. Read it again.

Diplomacy chart ALWAYS shows who is allied, at peace or at war; almost instantly (during ongoing turn).

You are right that it does not show whether someone didn't send peace or ally request, nor if a request was denied.
Does it really matter?

Btw. I'm against anything that facilitates ally-end, since war is the "natural" condition in this game called atWAR.

Think what the OP is trying to say is players should be able to see who rejects the proposal. Say max ally is set to 3 and there are five players in a game. One player proposes a change to increase ally amount, then one of the players rejects it. He wants the ability to see who rejected the proposal. I've experienced the same issue with all players in game saying 'I accepted' when it's clear as day some one is rejecting the proposal, which causes game to delay from ending.

Any way, nice suggestion OP.

Kirjutas theFuehrer, 08.05.2016 at 02:27

Think what the OP is trying to say is players should be able to see who rejects the proposal. Say max ally is set to 3 and there are five players in a game. One player proposes a change to increase ally amount, then one of the players rejects it. He wants the ability to see who rejected the proposal. I've experienced the same issue with all players in game saying 'I accepted' when it's clear as day some one is rejecting the proposal, which causes game to delay from ending.

Any way, nice suggestion OP.

how lazy are you to read ?

Kirjutas Columna Durruti, 01.05.2016 at 20:20

Kirjutas DeepFriedUnicorn, 01.05.2016 at 14:14

When ppl are tired & bored they call for an ally end........Someone proposes a change so that the limit of alliances can be made. Some people decline the changes just to troll, so it would be nice to know who accepted & declined so you are not sitting there for like 3-7 turns just saying "Who is not accepting" & voting people off of the island just cos they have the least amount of SP. And when all that happens in just turns into a waiting game & is annoying & stupid & takes the fun out of this game.

OK. You added this to your initial statement. Now it is understandable. It is actually about changing game settings to allow more alliances than originally fixed.

Kirjutas Guest, 08.05.2016 at 06:15

Kirjutas theFuehrer, 08.05.2016 at 02:27

how lazy are you to read ?

Thanks, was about to reply.

Kirjutas Guest, 08.05.2016 at 06:15

Kirjutas theFuehrer, 08.05.2016 at 02:27

Think what the OP is trying to say is players should be able to see who rejects the proposal. Say max ally is set to 3 and there are five players in a game. One player proposes a change to increase ally amount, then one of the players rejects it. He wants the ability to see who rejected the proposal. I've experienced the same issue with all players in game saying 'I accepted' when it's clear as day some one is rejecting the proposal, which causes game to delay from ending.

Any way, nice suggestion OP.

how lazy are you to read ?

Kirjutas Columna Durruti, 01.05.2016 at 20:20

Kirjutas DeepFriedUnicorn, 01.05.2016 at 14:14

When ppl are tired & bored they call for an ally end........Someone proposes a change so that the limit of alliances can be made. Some people decline the changes just to troll, so it would be nice to know who accepted & declined so you are not sitting there for like 3-7 turns just saying "Who is not accepting" & voting people off of the island just cos they have the least amount of SP. And when all that happens in just turns into a waiting game & is annoying & stupid & takes the fun out of this game.

OK. You added this to your initial statement. Now it is understandable. It is actually about changing game settings to allow more alliances than originally fixed.

Says the guy who didn't read the OP properly and nearly derailed this topic.