War, the great problem of the Ex-member you Vote

I have been playing for years and I have been changing alliances in order to improve my way of playing and I have always seen the same problem in all alliances, the problem of the player who has the war box checked enters an alliance the pairing begins war the player goes out and creates a problem for all the allies. This is very common and fills the other players with frustration and anger since you usually lose that war.

My proposal is that when they enter the Alliance that they are members, they cannot check the war box and that the way in which war can be played is through promotion to Elder.
That way the leader can see what the commitment of each new player in the alliance is, see if he attacks the titans and the leader can decide if that player is suitable to be promoted and can participate in the war…I know not. It will prevent that ally from leaving in the middle of the war or giving up shots and being expelled, but the leader will have a minimum of power to decide.

I agree it’s a royal pain in the… but this has been brought up more times than even I can count. It’s not going to change it makes the game no money, so why should they care.


Sorry but that gets a NO from me …. The issue has been raised many times but SG / Zynga etc don’t make any changes ….
For me personally-
It leaves the alliance open to manipulation … and by that I mean you can restrict war participation by simply refusing to promote someone to elder … and/or demoting players to member status as a possible “punishment” …


I think co/leaders should be able to unset a members ability to participate in war. For instance a respected member goes on vacation and forgets to uncheck war, the co/leader should be able to uncheck the player from war


And here I enter again as The Devil’s Advocate. What happens when you have a co-leader that doesn’t like certain people and they decide to do their own version of punishments and take people out of War. When you start doing power and control like that you’re leaving yourself open to bullying and revenge. If people leave Flags you boot them and move on. Then you alter your war strategy and see if you can still get the win. It’s your alliance and you do what’s best for your team micromanaging is never the way.


No one is forced to be in a particular alliance. If you are prevented from participating in war due to a rogue co-leader, you need to leave that alliance in the dust and join a sane one. There’s not much power and control when people can freely leave. You’ll soon be an alliance of 1.


That’s my point exactly, after playing for 6 years and leading the same house I think this is occurred Maybe five times. You boot and you move on, I don’t see why there has to be the power games or the micromanaging. Everybody knows in war you use flags. That’s it, it goes with accountability.
Having said all that, you have to understand real life happens as do emergencies. So each case is different. And should be handled accordingly. But again that’s why we have leaders not dictators.


Why would you have a co leader who has personal vendettas? Sounds like a leadership problem

This thread is giving responses to the poster as to the question posted. Questioning someone’s leadership skills is low rent.

1 Like

How would you know until the vendetta starts?

There are horror stories here about players promoted to co-leader who did a 180 and started booting half the alliance.

I for one would resent anyone else having control over what I can or cannot do in the game – and I say that as an alliance leader.

In our alliance this Ex-member issue has occurred exactly once in 5 years.


:thinking: Hm… similar but not identical:

As an accidentally promoted alliance leader I’m not so sure about Members not allowed to join war.

The simplest ‘solution’ is the war participation box is left empty rather than checked when joining an alliance. As it is, anyone joining is automatically enrolled in war and they could be unaware of it.


This I agree with and it should happen.

1 Like

I’d simply be happy with the addition of a “cooling off” period where a person who leaves 6 flags in a war can’t opt-in for the next one. Make it automatic so that there’s no feeling hurt. Display a message to the offender that explains why opting in but not participating hurts the alliance… again a generic one so no feelings are hurt.


There already is an automatic opt-out after two wars of unused flags. One war can often be RL interfering and requires no penalty for many alliances.

1 Like

This is a spiteful thing to do. We just had someone join, and has now left without a word leaving us with “ex-member” on the battlefield.

There was no animosity, in fact except for the players initial greeting, which was responded to, there was no further communication between him and the rest of us.

What an a$$hat thing to do.

If anyone sees this individual asking to be let in, it’s up to you. The name of this individual in Colin.

1 Like

Many complaints but only one vote and it’s mine

I do not agree with leaders or co’s being allowed to opt people in or out of war.

As stated above by others, this will give individuals power that no player should have.

Yes, the problem could be sorted out by SG, but I don’t see your suggestion being one that would be equitable for any player.

A better idea may get my vote.

Have you ever thought that SG could simply remove that offending team from the battlefield when the player leaves the alliance?

This is the only game I’ve played that leaves an “ex-member” on the battlefield.

The coding to make this happen would only take a few minutes to make this recurring issue go away.

I don’t know where he talks about that in the question.

The question is the same whether or not it was said. “War is the problem…”

This is not a new issue, and I’m surprised that it need a new thread or even a vote.

SGG can easily fix this by removing the war team when the player leaves the alliance.

The idea that people need to micromanage other people is childish and wrong.

I wonder just how frequently this occurs. It may fall under the radar of critical issues game-wide.