NationStates Jolt Archive

With all of the various war threads that are going on right now, I thought I would share some thoughts on running a war, and look for other people's opinions.

Also check out this great thread by The Vortex Corporation ! (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=47767&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0)

Here are my thoughts:

A: Limit allies. Say 10% or less of an allied country's forces can be sent for assistance, and no more than 2 allies. This will cut down on thread traffic and make the war more playable.

As this seems to be the biggest sticking point, let me suggest that the allies limit their forces ( still around 10-25% of the allied nations total forces), but number of allies participating be left to the primary participants, and it does not have to be equal, just what the parties involved agree to

B: Allies have to play their own armies. I.E. you can't say "Bobland has sent me 200,000 forces." Bobland has to take the time to participate. This would also cut down on puppet nations.*

C: An agreement on level of tech. If you don't want starships vs. elven archers, say it upfront. If you do go for it !

D: Magic, psi powers, angelic powers ect. , all very cool but see C.

E: Decide upfront what the cost of loss will be. Will you stop playing that country, will you pay the winner, dance naked on a table singing "I'm a little tea pot"

F: Consider an umpire. This could help with determination of losses, and you could determine the level of involvment of the umpire ( would they handle all losses or just settle disputes)

G: take all non-war related discussions to an OOC thread.

H: All nations agree if they are not involved to not post ( this may be the hardest, I am guilty of this sin. Sorry to all the threads I disrupted, I am trying to stop)

I: An agreement of power level. As I understand it most nations use a 5% of the population rule to detrmine the army size. But if you both wanted to use 50% or .00001% decide beforehand, and have everyone else shutup.

J: Limit the number of threads used for the war. One should cover it, two if you are fighting on multiple fronts.And one for OOC discussions.

Please tell me what you think, and add your own ideas

*It would be understandable to have someone run your forces for a short time if you had to get away for a bit, and didn't want to stop the action.

I totally agree. Especially taking the time to set up some rules of thumb before you start a war is important to keep things clear.

Stickyyyyy!

yes this is good!

can we have it stickyed?

MOD?

!

I totaly agree.


Mod, make this a sticky.

Very nice, especially C, F and ofcourse E :P

I agree and add. Don't make so many threads about attacks and defence. Try to keep it as little threads as possible. This makes the war easier to follow.

I agree and add. Don't make so many threads about attacks and defence. Try to keep it as little threads as possible. This makes the war easier to follow.

I will add that.

A: Limit allies. Say 10% or less of an allied country's forces can be sent for assistance, and no more than 2 allies. This will cut down on thread traffic and make the war more playable.
Problem: There are huge alliances, interests of other nations etc.. WELL RPed interests. (I don`t mean "war- jumpers" which are just eager to fight). You can`t just say "Nope, most of your allies stay out, only two are allowed!". There are wars that happen because both sides agree on it, just to have a little fun. For them, this rule works. But for wars that are based on RPd diplomacy etc, this simply wont work.

E: Decide upfront what the cost of loss will be. Will you stop playing that country, will you pay the winner, dance naked on a table singing "I'm a little tea pot"
again, this is only possible in an "planned" war, not on wars that arebased on complex in- game relationships.

Rest ok.

A: Limit allies. Say 10% or less of an allied country's forces can be sent for assistance, and no more than 2 allies. This will cut down on thread traffic and make the war more playable.
Problem: There are huge alliances, interests of other nations etc.. WELL RPed interests. (I don`t mean "war- jumpers" which are just eager to fight). You can`t just say "Nope, most of your allies stay out, only two are allowed!". There are wars that happen because both sides agree on it, just to have a little fun. For them, this rule works. But for wars that are based on RPd diplomacy etc, this simply wont work.

E: Decide upfront what the cost of loss will be. Will you stop playing that country, will you pay the winner, dance naked on a table singing "I'm a little tea pot"
again, this is only possible in an "planned" war, not on wars that arebased on complex in- game relationships.

Rest ok.

Good points, but to run a war that doesnt end in a stalemate, with half the countries ignoring the other half, you need to set some limits. And you can plan any war. It only takes a few minutes to set up the bondries. And even with extensive real world alliances, not everyone shows up.

And you can always modify the rules to suit the situation, but both side should agree.

very well thought out on pretty much all counts however, limiting the number of countries that help out in the war might be a problem. if this is the case, what might happen is that only the biggest on the most powerful alliances would be invited to play and this might discourage the development of new alliances. i mean why create an alliance of younger nations when you can try to get into the biggest ones, especially when you can get the biggest two who are acitive in war RPs. this might also give those who are in multiple large alliances. there might be diplomatic problems in choosing who to fight.

next, about the umpire: how can we ensure that the umpire would be fair in dealing with the losses, especially since it would almost be in his hands on what the outcome will be. will this create a new type of cheating in which people hide their alliance affiliations so they could get someone from their alliance to become an umpire?

lastly, instead of telegram, how about just setting up a separate thread for the OOC discussion? that way, we would have an instant log on what occurs and to ensure no one would cheat (say number fixing).

that said, i don't think any of the points i mentioned would be hard to fix.

very well thought out on pretty much all counts however, limiting the number of countries that help out in the war might be a problem.

This does seem to be the biggest sticking point. But I have been reading all of the GDODAD does to war with everyone and likewise threads, and it seems that the biggest problum is that there are so many people participating that it gums-up the works. Two may be an unrealistic number but you get more that 3 or 4 on each side plus the original players, well that is just to much going on. But perhaps the limit on Allied armies would fix that.

if this is the case, what will happen is that only the biggest on the most powerful alliances would be invited to play and this might discourage the development of new alliances. i mean why create an alliance of younger nations when you can try to get into the biggest ones, especially when you can get the biggest two who are acitive in war RPs. this might also give those who are in multiple large alliances (i myself am in 6 of the biggest). there might be diplomatic problems in choosing who to fight.

You have the same problum now. Why join the alliance of iron fisted dictators when youcan join GDODAD. Why start the capitalist front when you have WTO? And there will always be diplomatic issues with any alliance.

next, about the umpire: how can we ensure that the umpire would be fair in dealing with the losses, especially since it would almost be in his hands on what the outcome will be. will this create a new type of cheating in which people hide their alliance affiliations so they could get someone from their alliance to become an umpire?

The Umpire would only be as involved as the players want them to be. Or you could do it without one, if you don't trust the umpires.

lastly, instead of telegram, how about just setting up a separate thread for the OOC discussion? that way, we would have an instant log on what occurs and to ensure no one would cheat (say number fixing).

That is a great idea I will update the list.

that said, i don't think any of the points i mentioned would be hard to fix.

Yep, and all of this is optional and open to tweeking. Thanks for the imput.

first, re: stickying, i don't think the mods will, but you can ask Nanakaland to link to your thread in his sticky.

A: Limit allies. Say 10% or less of an allied country's forces can be sent for assistance, and no more than 2 allies. This will cut down on thread traffic and make the war more playable.

disagree, i don't think that numbers should be 'set,' but definately people need to be reasonable with force projection etc. for instance, if you send most of your army to help a friend you better pray nobody gets off their asses and comes for your nation.

B: Allies have to play their own armies. I.E. you can't say "Bobland has sent me 200,000 forces." Bobland has to take the time to participate. This would also cut down on puppet nations.*

agree in general; there should be some leeway given but overall you're dead on. the leeway should be for regional neighbors; if you look at where SeOCC is geographically you have to come through our neighbors to get to us. this requires case by case basis, but i think it's sort of lame to just assume the path to a nation is automatically open, which way to many people do.

C: An agreement on level of tech. If you don't want starships vs. elven archers, say it upfront. If you do go for it !

naturally agree; also, nations need to be flexible. my rule of thumb is that premises should not become advantages, and we should consider how much a nation puts into this or that military area subjectively. for instance, if someone playing a 1950's army attacks me i'd whoop them no doubt because i'm modern tech +1. but if i used the above method their military spending would be way above mine and they'd whoop me. in general, don't judge the tech by the relative level, if that makes any sense.

D: Magic, psi powers, angelic powers ect. , all very cool but see C.

strongly agree; these are hard because their hard to be integrated. while the difference between a F 4 Phantom and a F 15 isn't to much to be RPed around (for relative tech level) i can't really find a counterpart for a some things, like demon summoning.

E: Decide upfront what the cost of loss will be. Will you stop playing that country, will you pay the winner, dance naked on a table singing "I'm a little tea pot"

a good idea, even if its only ooc boundaries each nation should know what the opponent is willing to lose. equally, if you get into a war be fair about what you're willing to give up, to many people get into wars and cry god mode or something else when they find unrealistic boundaries violated. expect your cities to be bombed, and possibly the current government to fall if you get invaded. that's just life.

F: Consider an umpire. This could help with determination of losses, and you could determine the level of involvment of the umpire ( would they handle all losses or just settle disputes)

agree, now to just find someone i trust like that...

G: take all non-war related discussions to an OOC thread.

if only it were that simple.

I: An agreement of power level. As I understand it most nations use a 5% of the population rule to detrmine the army size. But if you both wanted to use 50% or .00001% decide beforehand, and have everyone else shutup.

this goes with tech level in a lot of ways; there are some very differant views of what is acceptable, ranging from the hyper-realists to the people who say 'its RP, quit talking about reality!'

J: Limit the number of threads used for the war. One should cover it, two if you are fighting on multiple fronts.And one for OOC discussions.

everyone point and laugh at Whittier, who is in the habit of staring a new thread for every new offensive. that was the most annoying thing ever because it was impossible to keep up with what was happening (and i only did because someone was attacking me).

1. This does seem to be the biggest sticking point. But I have been reading all of the GDODAD does to war with everyone and likewise threads, and it seems that the biggest problum is that there are so many people participating that it gums-up the works. Two may be an unrealistic number but you get more that 3 or 4 on each side plus the original players, well that is just to much going on. But perhaps the limit on Allied armies would fix that.

2. You have the same problum now. Why join the alliance of iron fisted dictators when youcan join GDODAD. Why start the capitalist front when you have WTO? And there will always be diplomatic issues with any alliance.


1. so true lol in the end, it all becomes such a mess and sometimes when i read war threads with all the alliance members involve, i get confused on who's on which side. hmm... why don't you let this be another thing that the players decide on? like if they think they can handle managing (they should be held responsible for managing the chaos) up to certain number of allies, let them. that way, no one will grumble about a fixed number.

2. good point. hopefully your idea will help the problem :wink: i guess part of the game would be being surprised when you pick on a nation a week old, thinking you can pulverize him only to be surpirsed he has nations 5 months older than you as allies.

Updated A. I am stil unsure about this, but you guys make some good points. I just hate seeing wars where the first 5 pages are people posting military stats.

Hmmm. A lot of regions and alliances have their own forums. A lot of extensive information could be posted on your own forum, and then when your whole Alliance is geared up, you could just post the summary here. This keeps the NS threads comprehensive, and if you need more info you just go to your own forums.

Hmmm. A lot of regions and alliances have their own forums. A lot of extensive information could be posted on your own forum, and then when your whole Alliance is geared up, you could just post the summary here. This keeps the NS threads comprehensive, and if you need more info you just go to your own forums.

Thats a great idea.

Bumped for war

Hmmm. A lot of regions and alliances have their own forums. A lot of extensive information could be posted on your own forum, and then when your whole Alliance is geared up, you could just post the summary here. This keeps the NS threads comprehensive, and if you need more info you just go to your own forums.

agree; all that should be done between participants, keeping what's posted the actual moves etc.

Hmmm. A lot of regions and alliances have their own forums. A lot of extensive information could be posted on your own forum, and then when your whole Alliance is geared up, you could just post the summary here. This keeps the NS threads comprehensive, and if you need more info you just go to your own forums.

agree; all that should be done between participants, keeping what's posted the actual moves etc.

But you'd have to post fairly in depth; it'd be no use, for example, if I did this:

Ha, Seook! I'm going to WAR with y00! I Set RDF 2 on y00r coastl1ne!!111*

Because I haven't told him what it is (SATO Rapid Deployment Force Two, if anyone cares), what it's doing or how it's doing it. And I don't know what it's doing it to, either.

More correctly would be:

I say, SeOCC old boy, jolly sorry and all but I'm going to have to set Rapid Deployment Force Two on you, what what. Now, as you know that consists of <Weapons> based at <Places> with <Officers> in charge. They're coming towards <Somewhere>

[BTW, could you tell me a little about <Somewhere>? Thanks.*]

*Silly accents added for comedy value.

I don't think that having both nations use the same mobilization rate, i.e using the same percentage of the population and the GDP, is necessary.

The defender could go as high as 70% of the population and 100% of the GDP is some circumstances, and there are historical examples.

Apart from that, positive feedback.

Sticky sticky sticky!

I'd agree with it all except point B, but perhaps I'd even agree with it to an extent. I it wasn't in my interests, I won't join a war. If I felt like I wanted to help sway the fight to one side, and not risk my own troops, I would help the cause by making and supplying arms and ammunition to that side. That side would still have to pay me for the service at one point or another though.

I would make this aid known at least OOCly.

Good to see this appearing in written form though. I would like to point out point F in particular. If anyone would need an umpire, I have previous experience in taking such a role, and I make an impartial judge despite my IC relations/involvement/moral bent etc. I would suggest coming to me for an umpire, or another player with a good RPing reputation. Perhaps even a mod if they have the time to spare?

I actually think that it would be better to encourage people to send armies but not participate. However, they would have to be specific and detailed about EXACTLY what they are sending so that whoever is controlling the army can know how to deal with it. This would allow people to get the full benefits of being in a large alliance but it would also cut down on the "clogging" that comes with having so many people participating. Another way, that I have been trying to do is to create "generals" for each alliance. In an alliance like GDODAD, it is almost impossible to RP a war where even a quarter of the people get involved. If they assigned three generals who would each control the armies of one third of the GDODAD countries, that would make things much easier.

Sticky sticky sticky!

I'd agree with it all except point B, but perhaps I'd even agree with it to an extent. I it wasn't in my interests, I won't join a war. If I felt like I wanted to help sway the fight to one side, and not risk my own troops, I would help the cause by making and supplying arms and ammunition to that side. That side would still have to pay me for the service at one point or another though.

I would make this aid known at least OOCly.

Good to see this appearing in written form though. I would like to point out point F in particular. If anyone would need an umpire, I have previous experience in taking such a role, and I make an impartial judge despite my IC relations/involvement/moral bent etc. I would suggest coming to me for an umpire, or another player with a good RPing reputation. Perhaps even a mod if they have the time to spare?

Seconded

I do believe this ought to be stickied or linked in a relevent sticky.

I think I agree with most of it, as it's fairly fluid in allowing people to make agreements on a conflict to conflict basis.

As for the limit on allied forces.. yes, it has to happen in some form.. it's terribly annoying when forty nations all jump in to a war that really doesn't involve them (and usually these nations are n00bish sorts throwing 500,000 men forward with no consideration to supply lines or other deployment issues.. but it's hard to say "get lost" as it just looks like cowardice/cheating)
..I think that perhaps where it's evident that one side has many more powerful alliances than the other the level of allies on each side should proportionately reflect that.

Say agitant A has a hundred allied nations (throught the likes of GODAD or something) and agitant B has about a dozen; perhaps through a fairly new region like my own, that agitant A ought to be allowed perhaps four or five allies (at most) and agitant B just one or two.
I'm sure there's flaws with that.. the defender in a bad situation would naturaly wish to call up more allies.. but if he did it would only lead to the whole of the larger alliance getting involved and negating his effort anyway (as well as jamming up the whole thread).

Good work though; this needed to be done.

(If it matters; I'm also Beth Gellert.. invited under that name, I've strangely been logged in under this one)

This is a good idea Celeborne.
I would be happy to follow these guidelines for future conflicts.

With all of the various war threads that are going on right now, I thought I would share some thoughts on running a war, and look for other people's opinions.

Here are my thoughts:

A: Limit allies. Say 10% or less of an allied country's forces can be sent for assistance, and no more than 2 allies. This will cut down on thread traffic and make the war more playable.

As this seems to be the biggest sticking point, let me suggest that the allies limit their forces ( still around 10-25% of the allied nations total forces), but number of allies participating be left to the primary participants, and it does not have to be equal, just what the parties involved agree to

B: Allies have to play their own armies. I.E. you can't say "Bobland has sent me 200,000 forces." Bobland has to take the time to participate. This would also cut down on puppet nations.*

C: An agreement on level of tech. If you don't want starships vs. elven archers, say it upfront. If you do go for it !

D: Magic, psi powers, angelic powers ect. , all very cool but see C.

E: Decide upfront what the cost of loss will be. Will you stop playing that country, will you pay the winner, dance naked on a table singing "I'm a little tea pot"

F: Consider an umpire. This could help with determination of losses, and you could determine the level of involvment of the umpire ( would they handle all losses or just settle disputes)

G: take all non-war related discussions to an OOC thread.

H: All nations agree if they are not involved to not post ( this may be the hardest, I am guilty of this sin. Sorry to all the threads I disrupted, I am trying to stop)

I: An agreement of power level. As I understand it most nations use a 5% of the population rule to detrmine the army size. But if you both wanted to use 50% or .00001% decide beforehand, and have everyone else shutup.

J: Limit the number of threads used for the war. One should cover it, two if you are fighting on multiple fronts.And one for OOC discussions.

Please tell me what you think, and add your own ideas

*It would be understandable to have someone run your forces for a short time if you had to get away for a bit, and didn't want to stop the action.

Celeborne,
Congratulations and thanks for a well-thought out post. We quite agree with most of the points as rules of thumb. We agree fully with all points except those listed below.

Point A: As a rule of thumb it makes good sense -
however, in the case of younger nations having to face an older one, circumstance would dictate commiting more than 10-25% of the forces by each of the allies.

Point B: This is the only point which I don't fully agree with. For two reasons. The first being that I don't see the objection behind it; and the second being that this has happened to me so often by many friendly older nations and without solicitation from me - that I would think it rude to turn their offer down, and oftentimes their offer would prove quite helpful.

Point H: I am also guilty of this sin - probably out of a need to remain active , involved and known to the other nations. Several times, I joined a thread in a manner less than graceful, but several other times too I join to declare neutrality or to offer medical aid or mediation or such.
Should there be a consensus on point H, however, I'd be happy to abide by it.

Kind regards.

Good points in general, but I dont think we should limit allies, as alliances play a part of a nation's power and capabilities. Of course, if the alliance does not work properly and allies only post "I'll send 20,000 troops to country X and then leave the thread", then the alliance become moot.
Hence, I agree with point B, since there are nations that resorts to puppet nations when they find out that they've been outnumbered.

Point H would be hard to enforce and work, as some people need to tend to IRL things and may not log on in a bit...

[OOC: I don't agree with C. If you interact with a high-tech nation, and end up facing their military - then you shouldn't have interacted with them in the first place. It becomes like some little, low-mil-tech nation crying, "No! You can't invade me! I'm less advanced than you!" in the real world. Nobody would listen or care.]

But as he said; that's to be agreed on by the nations.. it didn't state that a more advanced nation can't attack a less advanced one; just that both parties have to understand the gulf between them.

And as for Aerigia's assertion that allies shouldn't be limited; I think that's really the most important point here. They have to be. Wars with 117 nations on 94 just don't work, and they create a huge mess.
I'm fairly sure my suggestion about relativity works alright. It just takes a bit more time to agree who ought to come to who's aid, and makes people think a bit. If you're not willing to take that time, then you obviously don't care enough to follow any serious guidlines anyway, and should be left alone to have your little nooke-happy wars and what not.
(I hope that doesn't sound too much like an attack on you; that's not how it's meant to be directed, I assure you)

I think the point about C is this: generally you should know something about the nations you are fighting against. Short of something odd like total sci fi/fantasy where you have two civilizations colliding for the first time, you can assume military intelligence exists, and that you'd know something about the other side.
However, more significantly, to make a war thread enjoyable, you have to have some kind of agreement about how war is fought.

NO MORE RUDDY STICKIES!!!

Realism, IMHO, is paramount - even if the weapons being fought with are, to some degree, unrealistic, you have to try to make them so, no? So. Say EOTED invaded some small nation with little technological prowess (with a good RP buildup, of course): why should I RP EOTED fighting with swords, simply because we don't have any less advanced weapons than US/EMP wands, and EMP cannons, and kinetic missiles? That's just plain silly, as far as I'm concerned. If you RP with high-tech nations, then you take everything that goes with that - the US didn't lower its technical ability so that it could invade Iraq, now, did it?

In addition, consider this scenario:

EOTED issues an order to a small nation, whom we shall call Nation A to cease action X.

Nation A responds by telling EOTED to shove it.

EOTED responds by informing Nation A that there will be dire consequences if Nation A does not cease Action X.

Now, Nation A is a 20th Century nation - with no high-tech stuff, but it does have nuclear arms.

Back to the example...

Nation A informs EOTED that it will not cease and desist, and tells EOTED to 'do its worst'.

EOTED does so, instigating air strikes with G# bombers from 250,000 feet.

Nation A states OOCly that this is unfair.

EOTED removes said post, and amends, using older C# fighter/bombers instead (they are conventional jets).

Nation A launches nuclear arms at EOTED.

EOTED dies in a fireball because it was not allowed to use high-tech weapons - but this is at odds with previous RP, utterly destroying any sense of realism whatsover.

You see the problem?

WELL I do see your point here. I think the only thing that you can do in this case is look at the roleplaying history of the nations in question, and see what they're like. IF they have fought any wars. If they haven't you're right, this could become a problem, and there is no hard and fast rule for it.
The only thing I can suggest here is adaptability. When I first went to war with Iesus Christi, an archipelago called "the Channel Islands" was the main objective. Since Iesus Christi was outnumbered, he decided to nuke the islands, and announced that it had happened, that it was an awful thing he accused us of doing, and that they had all been reduced to huge plains of glass.
At first I was enraged; I thought it was a spoilsport idiotic thing to do, but then I decided to announce that a single nuke had been launched at one Island, and that though casualties were high, it was hardly a plain of glass. Furthermore, I accused Iesus Christi of launching it. (since you can actually plot such things unless you have no strategic capabilities at all)
Thus, things sort of worked out, but it later developed that Iesus Christi didn't want to fight a war with certain of my allies, claiming that he didn't like the way they roleplay wars.
This is where it gets sticky: you have to be adaptable, I think, and ready to negotiate about stuff like this. Otherwise you might as well play humble neutral nations that never get involved in military activity.

WELL I do see your point here. I think the only thing that you can do in this case is look at the roleplaying history of the nations in question, and see what they're like. IF they have fought any wars. If they haven't you're right, this could become a problem, and there is no hard and fast rule for it.
The only thing I can suggest here is adaptability. When I first went to war with Iesus Christi, an archipelago called "the Channel Islands" was the main objective. Since Iesus Christi was outnumbered, he decided to nuke the islands, and announced that it had happened, that it was an awful thing he accused us of doing, and that they had all been reduced to huge plains of glass.
At first I was enraged; I thought it was a spoilsport idiotic thing to do, but then I decided to announce that a single nuke had been launched at one Island, and that though casualties were high, it was hardly a plain of glass. Furthermore, I accused Iesus Christi of launching it. (since you can actually plot such things unless you have no strategic capabilities at all)
Thus, things sort of worked out, but it later developed that Iesus Christi didn't want to fight a war with certain of my allies, claiming that he didn't like the way they roleplay wars.
This is where it gets sticky: you have to be adaptable, I think, and ready to negotiate about stuff like this. Otherwise you might as well play humble neutral nations that never get involved in military activity.

I agree. But I still say: if a less advanced nation RPs with an advanced one, the less advanced one cannot expect the more advanced nation to take itself back to the tech of the less advanced nation in order to RP 'fairly'.

Life, after all, isn't fair - and RP is supposed to (at least in some way) mimic life. And it can be fun to be on the 'worse' end of a war, too.

Besides, it's an easy thing to just NOT get into the situation where a highly advanced culture wants to blow the hell out of you, anyway.

bumped. the ideas here are too good to be ignored.

Bump for discussion

We don't need another sticky... maybe a mod should just provide a link in Nanaka's thread.

We don't need another sticky... maybe a mod should just provide a link in Nanaka's thread.

It is already there.

Well bump.
This thread is to good to be on any other page then 1

Well bump.
This thread is to good to be on any other page then 1

Thanks :oops:

Well bump.
This thread is to good to be on any other page then 1

Thanks :oops:
Just wanna keep the noobs and multi thread wars out ;)

I feel the need to BUMP

:)

I agree and add. Don't make so many threads about attacks and defence. Try to keep it as little threads as possible. This makes the war easier to follow.

A very well-written article, first of all, and kudos to the creator for making it. We now have common rules of engagement.

Second, the above quote is a good point. I tried running a sort of CNN-esque news thread, where people could come and look up specific wars, and I was overwhelmed by the number of posts dealing with military actions. It's hard to keep track of "I move here, you kill me, more troops on my side, bombers come after me" after a day or so.

I'm new to all this and I want to know how to join richmainia who is in the alliance army? Please reply. :D

Perhaps we can make topographical maps to show where you are fighting. Would make it a bit more playable. And troop movements would become logistical.

Sticky! Sticky! Sticky!