ok... firstly i dont like large games based on too many factors/people... BUT one thing i hate is the fact i cant see all the people at war with all the other people, This for the honorable players is key as most of us make sure we dont fight people that have recently been in a war, or are at war currently with other players.... we cant see but the first 10 people or so

yes ia gree wit dorw on this, i just came into a situation liek that. luckily i found soem otehr guy in his territory and asked him if he was attacking.

I agree this would be a good idea. After all there can never be too much information on the field of battle!

This is extremely important for the players who believe in fair 1 v 1 fights. Also it helps us find the gangbangers and bring justice to their doorstep. Please Req, make this change. Thank you

TL

And req while your at it can you make in game tissues for all these whiners? thx )

I agree, the news should show who fights who ranked after who does the most damage, like it does today, but the complete list. Also any hostile takeovers in some similar way, not giving away all the details. And any castle-takeover with coords. Plus it'd be great if Last Action were listed. It's already available, so why not present it in the game news?

And I'm not sure I see the point in not showing who's got which castle.

Making things a bit more clear would probably better allow for different playing styles. Anyone who likes to gang-bang could do that, but with great in-game risk instead of the great risk of a forum flame. Anyone in the game who disaproves could do something about it. Help the weaker side, or talking some ally into helping if the battle is too far away. Politics would still play an important part. It would just be a little harder to get away un-noticed with sneakier tactics.

And as the news already ranks the bloodiest fights at the top, and there is some statistics at the casualties page - how about giving some indication on how bloody the fights are. No details, but perhaps ranking them from skirmish to slaughter or something.

All this would be information that might naturally spread mouth to mouth among the population, by travellers etc. A seige that results in a fallen castle is hard to keep secret.

many good reasons for, here's a reason against. Note: I don't really know how I feel about it one way or the other yet, but I'm not seeing both sides argued, so I'll post this thought that just came to me.

why should smaller battles be listed? the idea behind the abridged listings (IMO) is that only news of very great wars will spread across entire continents quickly. smaller skirmishes that might not really represent a great shift in power would not reach everybody in the land, because it wouldn't be as important.
We can already see a players rank at the begining of every turn... we can see top 5 casualties. we can see # troops dead throughout the whole map and top 5 types dead. Thats a lot of info and many things can be learned from it if you're diligent.

I'd be more interested in how the game played out with LESS information. No rank shown for instance. of course, the idea of gangbanging comes up, but people can still message eachother. if anything, I think it might make the game's strategy increase.

Hm, good argument. Maybe less of some info like on skirmishes and more detailed information on more important events? What was the reason for having anonymus castles on the map? That would be well known info among the people. As would whereabouts and involved in larger battles and important seiges and take-overs. I'm mostly brainstorning here not exactly sure on how much info really I want... oh no I'm a flip-flopper.

I do always feel that I want a somewhat better over-view of whats happening in the game. It takes a lot of messages to get that.

As far as knowing where people are spying is good for that

I also feel I'm missing out on the news, especially in the 40-player maps like game 73.

When the heat really gets on, there's so many massive battles that are just not reported.

This might not be changed, but I hardly the any reason not to. What irks me more is that sometimes, a building takeover doesn't get listed, and actually very rarely does get listed. So someone might have 4 castles, and you only saw him taking over the third.

Or someone has taken over all of someone's buildings, and all of a sudden 'X has taken over Y's pallisade!'. Gimme some mo

In addition to ^ector's note, what if (particularly in those huge games) the large scale battles (i.e. those top 5 or 10 or whatever in terms to kills) were listed, and then a handful of those in proximity to you.

This may not be possible to code, but with reference to news spreading across continents, things that are happening next door tend to spread quickly into your kingdom as opposed to those halfway across the world (or in this case, the map). Additionally, most don't tend to jump into (or at least they didn't when I was playing, so perhaps things have changed drastically--which means I have even MORE to learn and re-learn) battles that are a LARGE distance away, at least not initially (perhaps later in the game, but in those cases there are also fewer players left, and kingdoms are larger).

I'm rambling so I'll cut myself off....