As always we give the atomic atom already dominant and oppresses the weakest. keep it up .

Je suis parfaitement d'accord avec Besticio !

Pourquoi ne pas permettre aux petites associations de monter ????

Suggestion : une coalition entre petites associations avec qui elles sont déjà "Allié" afin de leur permettre de progresser !

Le jeu va à sa perte !!!

Hello, Commanders!

Thank you for sharing your feedback with us. However, we believe that with Coalitions it's much easier for players to coordinate their clans' actions. Cheers!

Alina said:

Hello, Commanders!

Thank you for sharing your feedback with us. However, we believe that with Coalitions it's much easier for players to coordinate their clans' actions. Cheers!

I agree Alina with the statement regarding Coordination; however, it's application is heavily one sided. Being a Vet, that served in a Coalition operation in Iraq might I state what should be the obvious. A coalition is an organized and coordinated effort by multiple independent military powers under the direction, guidance and supervision of one command to accomplish a goal or combine efforts in attacks to overtake and defeat a common threat or opposing enemy. The purpose for this is to combine elements to allow access to greater combat personnel and equipment, logistics and communication resources in order to be victorious over the greater common threat. I feel the coalition is a great idea, as I was already applying this tactic with other combines at the first of the year. In my application though it was to give the weaker combines greater access to those items previously mentioned above, in order to gain equality and give them a fighting chance on the battlefield in order to gain victories instead of being constantly pounded for points or turned into farms by the much larger and stronger combines, ie., the common threat to the lower combines and thus the purpose for the implementation of the coalition to begin with. With all of this said, I am not promoting the dismantling of the coalition premise, I am however, suggesting that you remove the 100 member requirement needed to be allowed to establish one, in order to give the lower combines both the choice and the chance to form one for themselves and give them at least a fighting chance. As it stands you have fattened the beast that both discourages and chases off so many low level players. Perhaps if they were given a better opportunity to have a fighting chance against the much higher combines instead of having it become even more difficult to withstand their onslaught, they might actually stay and play the game. This is just my input and personal opinion but if you ask around the battlefield and listen closely to the soldiers replies, you would have the appropriate intel needed to make both a well informed and accurate decision on how to proceed with this matter. I can also say you will find many that agree with everything I have stated in my comments. Have a great day and all the best with this command decision you have to make, I hope it is the right one.

FuriousLoneWolf said:

Alina said:

Hello, Commanders!

Thank you for sharing your feedback with us. However, we believe that with Coalitions it's much easier for players to coordinate their clans' actions. Cheers!

I agree Alina with the statement regarding Coordination; however, it's application is heavily one sided. Being a Vet, that served in a Coalition operation in Iraq might I state what should be the obvious. A coalition is an organized and coordinated effort by multiple independent military powers under the direction, guidance and supervision of one command to accomplish a goal or combine efforts in attacks to overtake and defeat a common threat or opposing enemy. The purpose for this is to combine elements to allow access to greater combat personnel and equipment, logistics and communication resources in order to be victorious over the greater common threat. I feel the coalition is a great idea, as I was already applying this tactic with other combines at the first of the year. In my application though it was to give the weaker combines greater access to those items previously mentioned above, in order to gain equality and give them a fighting chance on the battlefield in order to gain victories instead of being constantly pounded for points or turned into farms by the much larger and stronger combines, ie., the common threat to the lower combines and thus the purpose for the implementation of the coalition to begin with. With all of this said, I am not promoting the dismantling of the coalition premise, I am however, suggesting that you remove the 100 member requirement needed to be allowed to establish one, in order to give the lower combines both the choice and the chance to form one for themselves and give them at least a fighting chance. As it stands you have fattened the beast that both discourages and chases off so many low level players. Perhaps if they were given a better opportunity to have a fighting chance against the much higher combines instead of having it become even more difficult to withstand their onslaught, they might actually stay and play the game. This is just my input and personal opinion but if you ask around the battlefield and listen closely to the soldiers replies, you would have the appropriate intel needed to make both a well informed and accurate decision on how to proceed with this matter. I can also say you will find many that agree with everything I have stated in my comments. Have a great day and all the best with this command decision you have to make, I hope it is the right one.

FuriousLoneWolf

Hello!

First of all, welcome to our Forum! 

Thanks for your detailed feedback very much, I've read it with great interest. It's good to see how you share your own experience. One question though: How will be Coalitions without a limit of 100 members different from the Combines? Thanks!

Alina said:

FuriousLoneWolf said:

Alina said:

Hello, Commanders!

Thank you for sharing your feedback with us. However, we believe that with Coalitions it's much easier for players to coordinate their clans' actions. Cheers!

I agree Alina with the statement regarding Coordination; however, it's application is heavily one sided. Being a Vet, that served in a Coalition operation in Iraq might I state what should be the obvious. A coalition is an organized and coordinated effort by multiple independent military powers under the direction, guidance and supervision of one command to accomplish a goal or combine efforts in attacks to overtake and defeat a common threat or opposing enemy. The purpose for this is to combine elements to allow access to greater combat personnel and equipment, logistics and communication resources in order to be victorious over the greater common threat. I feel the coalition is a great idea, as I was already applying this tactic with other combines at the first of the year. In my application though it was to give the weaker combines greater access to those items previously mentioned above, in order to gain equality and give them a fighting chance on the battlefield in order to gain victories instead of being constantly pounded for points or turned into farms by the much larger and stronger combines, ie., the common threat to the lower combines and thus the purpose for the implementation of the coalition to begin with. With all of this said, I am not promoting the dismantling of the coalition premise, I am however, suggesting that you remove the 100 member requirement needed to be allowed to establish one, in order to give the lower combines both the choice and the chance to form one for themselves and give them at least a fighting chance. As it stands you have fattened the beast that both discourages and chases off so many low level players. Perhaps if they were given a better opportunity to have a fighting chance against the much higher combines instead of having it become even more difficult to withstand their onslaught, they might actually stay and play the game. This is just my input and personal opinion but if you ask around the battlefield and listen closely to the soldiers replies, you would have the appropriate intel needed to make both a well informed and accurate decision on how to proceed with this matter. I can also say you will find many that agree with everything I have stated in my comments. Have a great day and all the best with this command decision you have to make, I hope it is the right one.

FuriousLoneWolf

Hello!

First of all, welcome to our Forum! 

Thanks for your detailed feedback very much, I've read it with great interest. It's good to see how you share your own experience. One question though: How will be Coalitions without a limit of 100 members different from the Combines? Thanks!

The large difference to consider is the 100 member requirement needed for the formation of a coalition, in and of itself, and why it makes a difference. The large combines already have the combines that they work with or against and most of their membership requirements already restricts lower combines from joining. The smaller combines will take forever to acquire the required 100 members to form a coalition, once again leaving them out in the cold. Removing the 100 member requirement will make no significant difference to the large combines; however, this would allow for the smaller combines to co-align with other small combines that are "in their league" giving them the opportunity to benefit from the same benefits that it offers, the benefits that the large combines already enjoy. Not to mention, 10 small combines, let say with 10 to 20 members each, that have the opportunity to form their own coalition are much stronger than they are when functioning as a stand alone unit. That is the biggest difference, it allows for at least a chance at a more balanced battlefield engage, a better means of defending themselves with that coalition, cross-leveling resources though combine logistics and it allows for a better playing experience than simply being a farm for the larger combines. I hope this input is beneficial as many of the smaller combine commanders that I have spoke with feel that the current set-up only makes this harder for them and is severely unfair to make such a requirement that some of these combines may never reach.

Might I make a suggestion: simply run a temporary trial, a pilot study if you will, and drop the requirements to form a coalition and see how it performs. I truly believe it will provide for happier players at the much lower levels. The coalition concept in all honesty is more suited to serve the lower combines than the higher combines anyway, it was to serve the purpose of allowing many smaller military units to come together in order to stand up to, defend themselves from and defeat in necessary, a larger unit or greater threat.

I look forward to your reply.

FuriousLoneWolf

- FURY -

FuriousLoneWolf said:

Alina said:

FuriousLoneWolf said:

Alina said:

Hello, Commanders!

Thank you for sharing your feedback with us. However, we believe that with Coalitions it's much easier for players to coordinate their clans' actions. Cheers!

I agree Alina with the statement regarding Coordination; however, it's application is heavily one sided. Being a Vet, that served in a Coalition operation in Iraq might I state what should be the obvious. A coalition is an organized and coordinated effort by multiple independent military powers under the direction, guidance and supervision of one command to accomplish a goal or combine efforts in attacks to overtake and defeat a common threat or opposing enemy. The purpose for this is to combine elements to allow access to greater combat personnel and equipment, logistics and communication resources in order to be victorious over the greater common threat. I feel the coalition is a great idea, as I was already applying this tactic with other combines at the first of the year. In my application though it was to give the weaker combines greater access to those items previously mentioned above, in order to gain equality and give them a fighting chance on the battlefield in order to gain victories instead of being constantly pounded for points or turned into farms by the much larger and stronger combines, ie., the common threat to the lower combines and thus the purpose for the implementation of the coalition to begin with. With all of this said, I am not promoting the dismantling of the coalition premise, I am however, suggesting that you remove the 100 member requirement needed to be allowed to establish one, in order to give the lower combines both the choice and the chance to form one for themselves and give them at least a fighting chance. As it stands you have fattened the beast that both discourages and chases off so many low level players. Perhaps if they were given a better opportunity to have a fighting chance against the much higher combines instead of having it become even more difficult to withstand their onslaught, they might actually stay and play the game. This is just my input and personal opinion but if you ask around the battlefield and listen closely to the soldiers replies, you would have the appropriate intel needed to make both a well informed and accurate decision on how to proceed with this matter. I can also say you will find many that agree with everything I have stated in my comments. Have a great day and all the best with this command decision you have to make, I hope it is the right one.

FuriousLoneWolf

Hello!

First of all, welcome to our Forum! 

Thanks for your detailed feedback very much, I've read it with great interest. It's good to see how you share your own experience. One question though: How will be Coalitions without a limit of 100 members different from the Combines? Thanks!

The large difference to consider is the 100 member requirement needed for the formation of a coalition, in and of itself, and why it makes a difference. The large combines already have the combines that they work with or against and most of their membership requirements already restricts lower combines from joining. The smaller combines will take forever to acquire the required 100 members to form a coalition, once again leaving them out in the cold. Removing the 100 member requirement will make no significant difference to the large combines; however, this would allow for the smaller combines to co-align with other small combines that are "in their league" giving them the opportunity to benefit from the same benefits that it offers, the benefits that the large combines already enjoy. Not to mention, 10 small combines, let say with 10 to 20 members each, that have the opportunity to form their own coalition are much stronger than they are when functioning as a stand alone unit. That is the biggest difference, it allows for at least a chance at a more balanced battlefield engage, a better means of defending themselves with that coalition, cross-leveling resources though combine logistics and it allows for a better playing experience than simply being a farm for the larger combines. I hope this input is beneficial as many of the smaller combine commanders that I have spoke with feel that the current set-up only makes this harder for them and is severely unfair to make such a requirement that some of these combines may never reach.

Might I make a suggestion: simply run a temporary trial, a pilot study if you will, and drop the requirements to form a coalition and see how it performs. I truly believe it will provide for happier players at the much lower levels. The coalition concept in all honesty is more suited to serve the lower combines than the higher combines anyway, it was to serve the purpose of allowing many smaller military units to come together in order to stand up to, defend themselves from and defeat in necessary, a larger unit or greater threat.

I look forward to your reply.

FuriousLoneWolf

- FURY -

Hello!

the results?? like when the attack limit was removed, with the entry of the cobras they created some MONSTERS that sweep the map all day attacking the small players and destroying small coalitions. Imagine without limit the coalition members.

  eheheh Destruction is near. Only VIPs are heard. 30 VIPs, and leave out 30,000 small players. too hungry for immediate gain. A strategy must be developed for small coalitions, there is no more competition, and the game has changed its identity.