Alliances to have own land

[Fortune]

This was mentioned in another suggestions post about alliances in general. However i think its likely that this will never get through because its too big. But the possiblities though are huge. It gives the alliance more money not simply from feeble taxes.

Benefits:
It would mean that smaller alliances (not that there are many left anymore :x ) have more of a chance to finish developments at HQ and allows them to be able to have serious troops from Hq to send to defend.
Allows a more diverse range of HQ troops and allows people to use them more
Possiblity of more HQ techs
Money which should be allowed to be sent to members in need - to buy troops for defence; to recover from being wiped.....
Any other people can think of......


The idea needs development much futher but the idea of donating acres to the HQ may be a possiblity....

Comments....

[Chezz]

the idea of donating acres to the HQ may be a possiblity....

I don't quite like the idea of donating, but perhaps the Alliance HQ could have its own 'Land Management' page, and its own 'Maintanence' and 'Supply Depot' page.

Also, alliance land could be more 'productive' as a potential source of income for alliance techs and units.

[Fortune]

the only problem is is how would the alliance get the acres in the first place......

they could buy it but the inital money would have to start from tax or perhaps the alliance starts with land and buys more and this may stop big alliances from simply having big members donating a lot and having huge amounts of unbeatable HQ troops.

[Darryl]

the only problem is is how would the alliance get the acres in the first place......

they could buy it but the inital money would have to start from tax or perhaps the alliance starts with land and buys more and this may stop big alliances from simply having big members donating a lot and having huge amounts of unbeatable HQ troops.

I had a vague idea of all alliances starting with x-acres, and using alliance units to attack each other (alliance Geos?). This could mean that the top alliance just ends up with all of the acres, but to do so, they'd have to initially finance their alliance HQ army to make it self-sufficient, which would be quite a big amount of money when it could otherwise go on normal units..The trouble is finding a reason for people to *want* to spend money on units to get alliance acres.

Money being given to alliance members from the HQ should *never* happen. there's a reason that players can't send money to each other, and this just gets around that via a middle man, with potential abuses of a huge member from a higher alliance joining, and donating, after it being agreed that the funds will be given to a late-starter, or whatever. Funds/units/plants/seeds should never be legally allowed to be donated to players, whether it be from other players, or HQ, as it's equivalent.

HQ units and HQ developments aren't *that* much of an advantage, either, most alliances seem fairly happy to just donate until search lights, and then forget about it. there needs to be an advantage to having the best HQ, with the most land, and so on. The only thing I can think of at the moment is integrating this into some sort of alliance war system, or just alliance points.

[Fortune]

I agree that serious abuse can occur when money starts to be donated to people so maybe that wasnt such a good idea.
However, like you said, must people get search lights and then sont bother about the alliance funds because the advantage of alliance troops is not big enough and partly because not many people want to inves in something only the allinace leader or Mo has control over. This may help to answer teh problem of why people prefer to be Psolo than in an alliance.
The trouble with havign AGeos and having alliance wars via alliance troops is that the alliance troops are way too small a range of troops...it would be defenders owning....
TBH how many peopel actually use alliance troops or ever attack an alliance HQ? No one......
The idea of having alliance land would be to utilse alliance troops much more.

[Darryl]

The trouble with havign AGeos and having alliance wars via alliance troops is that the alliance troops are way too small a range of troops...it would be defenders owning....


A more extensive set of alliance troops, perhaps even with development trees isn't a bad idea, though, of course, there's nothing stopping normal player's units being sent along with the alliance unit's attacks.

[Fortune]

true but if only a bigger aliance route then it would not really increase the amount of troops brought becuase as said earlier....people would prefer to spend money on own troops.

[Lupus]

good idea as we need to increase the importance of the Alliance HQ. This would make HQ's more targetable as players could steal land from HQ's as well as other players.