For the Alliance!

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • For the Alliance!

      Greetings, Kings & Queens,

      in times of exploration, military conflict, and economic challenge, finding allies is key. Today’s update will help you out: With the introduction of the alliance system you are provided with everything you need to connect with other players for long-term cooperative play. Team-up for private or alliance-vs-alliance games! Share your knowledge of the game and learn from experienced players! Lead your alliance to glory! Among the benefits of joining an alliance are not only a dedicated alliance chat but also a fancy tag attached to your name.

      Join or create an alliance today to take the next step on your way to a colonial empire!

      Check out the complete list of changes below. We are looking forward to your feedback!

      Your New World Empires team


      List of changes:
      • Added Alliance system.
      • Adjusted the manpower cost of Heavy Ship to 1,000 on all levels (before, manpower cost increased with level).
      • Unified the cost and upkeep of Explorers to include grain on all levels.
      • Unified Explorer movement speed across all levels.
      • Updated / added unit walking animations for: Administrator, Light Infantry, Heavy Cavalry.
      • Fixed save button in player settings.
      • Changed player colors for Scotland (were too similar to their neighbors).
      • Fixed "cousin defeated" pop-up appearing too often.
      • Improved stability of stats updates.
      • Enabled promotion pop-up when reaching a new rank.
      Felix / Alkyonor
      Community Manager
      Bytro Labs GmbH
    • Good update.

      "I came, I saw, I conquered" Written in a report to Rome 47 B.C.,after conquering Pharnaces at Zela in Asia Minor in just five days; as quoted in Life of Caesar by Plutarch; reported to have been inscribed on one of the decorated wagons in the Pontic triumph, in Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Julius, by Suetonius.

      "Alea iacta est" Gaius Julius Caesar.
    • Alkyonor wrote:

      Hey Slomoney, these are 'external' alliances independent from single games. In-game you just gain the alliance chat which allows you to talk to alliance members. Once you join an alliance you can create alliance-internal or alliance-vs-alliance games, though.
      Ok so I guess that leads to my next question how can one protect a game against alliances, and or can one join more than one alliance.
    • Just to be clear. So any game you join could possibly have a group of alliance mates that have colluded to join together and crush everyone not in the alliance and you wont know this before joining? That sounds like wolf-packing. This of course could have been happening before the alliance patch...the new patch just makes it alot easier and gives them a chat to better communicate.
    • Kvasir Silverpaw wrote:

      Just to be clear. So any game you join could possibly have a group of alliance mates that have colluded to join together and crush everyone not in the alliance and you wont know this before joining? That sounds like wolf-packing. This of course could have been happening before the alliance patch...the new patch just makes it alot easier and gives them a chat to better communicate.
      Maybe there is a rule on wolf packing. ;) @Dr. Leprechan
      I don't see this occurring too often in the previous bytro games thankfully.
      Former New World Empires Main Administrator
      Call of War Community Coordinator / Main Administrator
      Thirty Kingdoms Senior Game Operator
      Bytro Labs | EN Community Support
      Click here for NWE Tutorial Videos!

      And here for the Manual!
    • I sadly believe that the reason wolfpacking is not noticed in the other games is they wipe out the individual players as fast as AI's get wiped out. Take the game Chatters II there was a preset gang of 3 with a plan for a swift strike well they didn't have the usual chat, and some trades and a few other things broke down but they did manage to irreparably damage 2 players. I believe with on line chat its easier to keep communications clearer, Oh and they won't accidently send info to a non treaty member which on occasion happens with a message system. It was obvious from the start that more than one was in this plan, but to detect who was a bit up in the air. I'm sorry if you get 4-5 in a pack there is a method that could be sustained long enough to ruin 5-8 live players could it succeed totally not sure but worse than in actives leaving if 5-8 players were eliminated within 10-12 days you will again have a mass wave of players that will leave, and it will be an allies only game.

      Solution one switch allied chat allowed X
      allied chat not allowed

      When that game is open it locks out any ally chat. So they at least would have the headache of having to close and reopen that game to see ally chat it would slow coordination at least to the point equal to the message system. I think that type of an on off switch could be manageable.
    • Croaker wrote:

      and whom was this gang of 3 slomoney? seriously you are making false accusations.
      Let me ask this is a group regardless of size, go into a game and feed one of the players with all sorts of precious commodities in order to set up a campaign to take 79 provinces in 9 days, would you say the others of the group are not playing just supporting to me that is a classic definition of Wolfpacking. You Croaker are not even in the game so don't go accusing me of making false accusations when you have absolutely no facts.
    • Slomoney, you are assuming to much which could wrongfully harm innocent parties who are only guilty of one thing; through study, diplomacy, and above all else, strategic insight have out maneuvered his opponents.

      I personally encouraged England to join the game who was in another game with me. It wasn't my intention to ally with him, and we are not allied. So regarding England, he was not part of any preset alliance. He did however very quickly befriend Scotland, Norway, and Lithuania, and myself. This apparently being his playing style.

      Based on the character of the main individual in question displayed in the game, I'd say he is worthy of respect for his achievement and mastery of the game at this early stage. Furthermore, his overly kind attitude since the big event has hindered his dominance in the game and complicated things exceedingly. I'm a little confused at this point who is in league with who, but I in no way suspect that any cheating or unfair practice has been involved.

      As you know I was attacked after 24 hours or so, and defended myself against one nation, only to be attacked by a second. Both of who are now defeated. I was wrongly slandered in the chat for buying my victory, which is offensive, and not true. The closest thing to that is my premium membership which is indeed advantageous, but not cheating. I didn't however, outright buy any units. Through careful planning I was ready to start producing mercenaries at the time of the attack. Along with some other strategic plays, I survived without cheating. Actually, when my enemies were finally defeated, more than half my army were mercenaries, and my economy was a disaster.

      Consider this: Is is possible to capture an entire AI nation within the first week with these stats?

      Netherlands: 1332 casualties
      Burgundy: 11000 casualties

      I know this player didn't cheat, though someone may suspect it. How could he anyway?

      I believe it is your intent to be an honorable player. please by careful not to accuse people without definite proof.
      All the world is a stage, to conceal the truth.

      If you choose to send me a message written in letters instead of words, thereby forcing me to communicate according to your ignorant and lazy manner, then I choose to reply, via my troops.
    • report the player. click there name then report player button.Heck have them check for ducat use also. I doubt they will,would set a bad example but I give permission if that means anything. Ducat use is allowed but extreme ducat use in a community game is problay poor sportmanship. I am Lithuanian and since some companies will ban a player first then check the problem,not saying bytro is this way, I feel the need to explain. I just use different name in forum. Wonder what you will think when Savoy's economy ,military explodes which is coming judging by his new provs and newspaper reports.
      Brandenburg's forces were hurt by heavy losses expanding for whatever reason and he was number 2 in territory. Plus they were split helping denmark repel the english . Denmark had almost no army left. So 3 nations quickly became one. And of course the merc factor. I made 0trades with england and norway I think. I traded 5000raw minerals for 5000food with scotland only. And he needed the minerals I assume. Heck if I had traded with you our trade volume would of been almost as heavy.
      But now to the issue,so I accused you of accusing me when you didnt know you were accusing me. I made my accusations without the facts even though your facts seem to be more like random guessing. Like I said before if you suspect this kind of thing report the player next time. This shouldn't be in the public forum. Everyone in the said game knows exactly who you are talking about.
      I do enjoy your roleplaying and hope things sort themselves out.
    • Kvasir Silverpaw wrote:

      Im not in said game. Id appreciate knowing what Slo has to say. The follow up reply makes you look guilty. I might have been born at night, but it wasnt last night.
      No I am done with this,
      1. I was trying to explain my objection to alliances in an open game that had a distinct advantage with an in game chat.

      2. I do find it devious and poor sportsmanship to use one name in game and one out of game(in forum).

      3. Congratulations Lannister21 //Croaker on your finding a way to surge that far in so little time.