in this game mode it is just like multi-day (no time)also there are no team deathmatch instead you have to make an invitation to your alliance but the host can change the amount of members in an alliance, you have to buy cards with your army for example diplomacy costs about 5 for example but you have to put your capital for example if you were playing in the medium world map and you the caucasus then you can make Georgia your capital but you have to protect it, if you don't then you lost and all your territories now belongs to your enemy.

add more if you think its not that much

WAY too confusing. Gotta do a better job explaining that.

You need to be a lot clearer on what you mean, because I don't think anyone can parse your paragraph. Some of the few things I can see are not possible with the way Warlight is coded, either.

from the sounds of it, he wants many of the custom scenario's currently played to be hardlined into warlights coding.. plus a point system for cards, which has kinda been proposed with an idea called Generic cards..

1. there are no TEAMS but rather you have to invite people to your alliance but the host can change the settings of how much members

2. you have to buy cards by money( game money ) for your tax and make the people happy not mad

3.place your capital in your territories but if your opponent reaches it and took it then you lost the game and all of your territories are now his

its a new fucking game mode, like multi-day and real-time!

1 - The host can change the settings of how many members what? Can enter the game? Can be on a team? CLARIFY.

2 - You want a tax system and a population happiness meter? COMPLETELY different than anything in the game... hardly seems worth developing what would likely be considerable amount of code for one small subset of the game.

3 - Capital modes have been advocated plenty of times but make little sense. When a country loses it's capital it often continues right on fighting. USA was hardly fazed when the White House burned in the War of 1812. Russia just changed their capital after Napoleon took Moscow and kept right on fighting. I am sure there are countless other examples.

multi-day and real-time are two different boot time clarifications.
Real time means you can be booted after 4 hours max, often though it is only 2-10 minutes.
Multi-day means you can be booted after 23(I think) hours.

What your suggesting sounds more like a new game IMHO.
I don't mind the idea of having player made alliances in game, though that would require a new diplomacy window.
The buying cards though and happiness and such is not just a new window, it is changing how the game works.
Happiness does what?
how is tax decided?
I think either flesh out your ideas more, or, suggest these as new game mechanics, because is it is there is no "game modes" just different classification of boot time.(at least that is how I view them)
If you mean(you probably do) just having it as another option in the open game menu, then it seems weird to have the first two as boot time related then the third being a game mechanic like multi-attack.

I like your idea dakoish

All I can think when I (attempt to) read this idea is Dakoish saying"

|>I love your Risk-based game but you should make a variant like Sid Meier's Civilization

All while not realizing that the two games are drastically different game engines.

|> its a new fucking game mode

There is no need for that kind of language... I think everyone understood you are suggesting a new game mode. The problem is, your suggestion is not very clear. Remember, we can't look in your head, only at what you write.

I understand, and respect, English is not your native language (btw, it's not my native language either), but if someone asks you to describe your idea more clearly, yelling doesn't help.

Honestly, if you would just use punctuation (periods, comma's, capital letters) and short sentences, your ideas would already be much easier to understand. You can be angry with Richard for not asking more politely, but he does have a point: if we don't understand what you are trying to say, it's difficult to like your suggestions.

for number one instead there are no TEAMS like team A or B but instead you can have an alliance with someone and if he accepts then you are not allowed to attack him only if you "declare war" on him and for the capital it doesn't matter you can change it a bit
also more territory means more money cuz you give how much tax to the people/territory and you will gain money and it will boot you in 3 days cuz its a long game and you can change the idea a bit but I will the idea

P.S English is my first language but I type tooooooooooo fucking fast

"tooooooooooo fucking fast"
Umm, again as RvW has said swearing wont make it clearer and that is possibly one of the worst excuses I have heard.

So you don't have time to write out your idea?
If so then your wasting more time having too keep repeating yourself trying to make us understand what your saying.

You do have time you just like to type fast?
Then take some time and collect your thoughts and then reread it, maybe say it out loud as you do.
Then if you don't think there is any mistakes, post.

Do you want our ideas and help fleshing it out?
Then be clear and then ask for suggestions, Fizzer(maker of warlight and only coder,designer and also plays the game) cant add things he doesn't understand.

I type fast often... if I am talking to friends, talking in public chat, PMing, etc.
But if I am trying to make someone understand my point I take my time, same if I am purposing something.

Though, I didn't check this... I am busy painting. :P

I was busy with my map I was making :( also how can I contact him?

http://warlight.uservoice.com/forums/77051-warlight-features

Thats the user voice, at this point most people have voted already so it is hard for new votes.
As for contacting him directly, I know he monitors the forum so he probably has seen, or will see this thread.
Also what map are you making, its tough work, boring work. :P

thanks :)

so its an ffa, with enforced truces? theres already the idea of binding/public truces, its high up on uservoice.

the other aspect seems to be like bonus armies for extra territories, only instead of armies you get money for card pieces?

i still dont understand the 'happiness' bit.

|> I type tooooooooooo fucking fast

"If you don't have time to do it right, where are you going to find the time to do it over?" - EWD

I'm sure it would've taken far less time if you'd had written your post properly and understandable the first time around than having to come back and make many additional posts in a halfway-successful attempt at clarifying your ideas. Btw, I'm not just talking about your time, I'm also talking about everybody else's time...

@x:
Thank you for your deciphering efforts.
He only mentioned "happiness" once, I think it was a fluke; just pretend he only said "tax" (ie. buying card pieces).

Funny thread
any way dakoish.We sought of understand your idea we are just telling it's imposible.

+1 richard, on your interpretation..

RvW, I think what he means to say is.. since he types too fast, he types before his mind has a chance to think, and this is the result...