How many heroes are enough?

How many heroes would be enough, just wondering? Before the strong alliances decided they (Leaders and their members) have enough and is ok to let other players play. Before they hide their rudeness behind the all-familiar “its part of the game” excuse, to attack lower level heroes or intimidate them into leaving. So they can move to another spot and get another “friendly” relocation its advice, Yeiii, more fun!!! Lets “experience” this game.How proud should these alliance members be, they only send 3-4 level 25 and above heroes to attack level 1-2 heroes. And why? Because one of their members wants “THAT” spot for their hero number 3 or 4…how arrogant of them! Push out a player that has 1 single hero and is trying to learn the game for your greediness.  Even when called something else, sorry, you are being a bully (a person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker), Is this not what you guys do?Maybe this game will turn into a monopoly of 3-4  alliances and their members, and maybe that will be enough players to test the game, or maybe they just cancel each other out. Or just maybe the sandbox has gotten bigger and  its ok to share.

if you are speaking of my alliance then you can look at my hero and many others and clearly see most of us are still boxed in by other members. we do not just "bully" we really do enjoy the game for what it is, a PVP game. Sorry you are having a bad experience in the game, and for the other more advanced players, it really is a friendly warning to move out of there way, because they WILL attack you. Take it how you will, but it is how the game is played.

A strong collectivism alliance, with good commanders is an equal match for the leaderism alliances as I can attest having been beat more than once this stage by good defensive tactics.  It's a shame that the commander who was so brilliant decided to delete and leave his alliance high and dry, but while he was here, he put up a great fight. 

And, I expect, with regional alliances in the final release the opportunity for regional war will expand.  But, by the same token, what Valkyrie complains of is a fight for territory which will never go away.  Been there, done that, have the arrow riddled T-shirt to prove it.  If anyone even looks at the "no suitable server" report, they can see I was losing my town to two much stronger players (probably the first of many had I not made a deal) when the server crashed.  All over horses.  So, this is nothing new and will likely never end.

All in all I would like to see a more intense wars between alliance of equal strength. So far most people are taking the easy route :)

FYI, the easy route is leaderism against leaderism! 1:1. We have choosed the hardest way : leaderism against collect + 30% bonus defense. Like River said, our armies were wiped many times by strong reinforcements send by one of the best collectivism commander in this game. So a leaderism alliance and a GOOD collectivism alliance are perfectlly equal!

I'd like to add one thing.  Many of us have been here for several stages and our alliances have fought each other before, in different forms.  This stage we managed to form diplomatic relations, which is also part of the game.  As a result, we are, as Arya said, taking the much harder route going after collectivism alliances.  :-)

This is a smallish community, as I have said many many times before.  Widespread diplomatic relations between alliances unknown to each other (as in the final release) will probably be few and far between as most players will be strangers to each other. 

Finally, this is testing, people.  Please remember that.

I have to add something here. This is about three renaissance age heros attacking a level 1 stone age player.

While I realize the new hero was placed right on top of the resources coveted by an alliance member still seems like a bit of overkill.

I also admit to doing the same exact thing last stage although we could only get to medieval then. Of course I only took out a second town and suggested a better placement for that town.

to say it is done in the name of testing really doesn't seem to be the answer in this case, or Bers needs to make it so we cannot attack a lesser age or there will never be new players coming into the game. talking about joining a strong alliance is fine if the hero has the chance to research a mission but since he is still in stone age that is not an option. Please do not skew the facts here.

Mostly, hits on stone age are done for territory, and in the case of FF, after we have advised relocation with an offer to help with resources which offer has either been ignored or refused with insults attached. 

We do not make a habit of stalking stone age players around the board to hit them for experience points or for no reason at all. I am aware of an instance where one of our members used another of his heroes to hit someone for territory.  That attacker was more developed, true. It was also collectivism.  But, so far, there is no prohibition against that even if it looks "bad".

That being said, I have no problem with the notion that you can't hit another player more than 2 ages below your development, which would protect stone age from renaissance and classical from industrial, etc.  Such a limitation, with room for war-like settling of territorial disputes seems like a fair compromise.   I can tell you that hitting one stone age alone, again for territory, I got wiped by five stone age watch towers.  My fault for not sending the right units, but it can happen and did, so they are not helpless.  :-)

That is also another good reason for the prolonged protection for the new players.

That is also another good reason for the prolonged protection for the new players.

Yes. That is true.

yes I agree the additional protection will help. And yes an army can be wiped by a stone age player if the wrong units are taken to war. I just wanted the real issue addressed since new blood is a must for this game to be successful.

All in all I would like to see a more intense wars between alliance of equal strength. So far most people are taking the easy route :)

I think that's the true problem, but imo it stems from: a) game being in alpha with not enough players b) the coll/lead politics specification. Solving either will probably decrease attacks of stronger on weaker. (actually, lead attacking lead is the EASY route...)

Thing is, there are as much as 4 leaderism alliances with let's say 130 heros (probably less), but you need to divide that number by 2.5 as the long time players in those alliances probably have at least 2 heros each. So if one allianace member is blocked by a collectivism player - even much weaker (casual player, not so developed, but in an alliance) it will not be enough to gather all alliance members to remove him (as you cannot attack with mulitple heros). 300% defense + towers + defense units + alliance reinforcements (even if small) is enough to wipe 5 considerable armies (I'm sure you had reports sent to you that show exactly that). So to enable any successful attacks that could counter the 300% you need 3 times that many attackers - no wonder that 3 alliances gather to actually make any impact. I have joined this alpha sometime after it launched so I'm not fighting for space, but just looking at that initial part of the map shows why the alliances need to cooperate. It's better to tolerate another lead player on your border to be able together to remove 1 culture focused collectivism kingdom.

I know it might sound strange and counterintuitive but I think one way to even out the field would be to decrease coll defense mechanisms (so that at least those coll players who already engage in plundering and attacking will feel tempted to switch) or increase incentives to start as leaderism (faster/cheaper unit training, etc). Constant improvement of coll politics only leads to more coll players on the map. If there were more leaderism they would be attacking each other because, believe me, it's exactly 3 times easier ;p

I think that's the true problem, but imo it stems from: a) game being in alpha with not enough players b) the coll/lead politics specification. Solving either will probably decrease attacks of stronger on weaker. (actually, lead attacking lead is the EASY route...)

I think it stems from something else - human nature :) And it is much harder to fix :)

I agree with Ubique concerning lead/coll specifications. The 2 descriptions are too opposite! A newbee will be scared by leaderism description and be tempted by "seducing" collect description. Reading that one you got the feeling that you are " untouchable" - I know what I am speaking about because I started as a collectivism last alpha LOL. When you read the mention : "a collect's dwelling cant be captured" you feel safe! You cant even imagine that, few months later , your entire kingdom with 4 or 5 towns can be wiped and reduced to 1 single cell!  At that moment, believe me, peoples doesnt care anymore if their dwelling can be captured or not, they wont be able to continue to play that hero. They will feel very dissapointed( to be soft) and betrayed and most of them will leave the game ...Is human nature, like you said :)