New rule (MW) vote

Medieval War is always forming into the best possible game we can make it. I've come across a new rule we need to come up with. And I want you all to vote on the rule.

This rule pertains to alliances. Here's the example:

Club A created an alliance with club B to attack Club C.

Club A and Club B dissolve the alliance between them but Club A already was fighting Club C.

What happens to that battle?

• A. Nothing, but no more battles can be made via that alliance because the agreement of alliance was already made
• B. No territories can be claimed at the end but league points can be to keep the event league-like
• C. No territories are earned at the end but double league points to the winner So the match is just a 'Null' match like other Null ones
• D. The Battle is erased from the War (no league points and no territory winning) Because the agreement between Club A and Club B has been removed the battle is also.

Please vote which rule you think should be applied if a kingdom fails to cooperate with each other and the alliance is broken.

A

A

B

A, because the dissolving of the alliance should not affect the battle

It would be as if they never made the alliance, and club A declared war on club C by themselves

C

To entice breaking up alliances 

lol

D to keep this fair all of alliances need to be restructured. If A is chosen then I can create alliances attack multiple clubs and then just abolish the alliance. What then is the point of only being able to attack squares next to you if you can just override with many unnecessary alliances that will be Brocken in a few days. I say we abolish the alliance feature for a while and  us club war admins talk over recreating it without causing the current problems we are facing.

A. @club-wars-player has a good point, but then if A is in a battle with C and B dissolves the alliance, then A would potentially be cheated out of winning a territory, without them being at fault. I think this is worse than @club-wars-player's scenario.

If club A and club B is allied, then if they want to attack club C as allies, the club next to club C should issue the challenge (In this case if club B is next to club C and club A isn't, then club B should issue the challenge, not club A). If both are next to club C then the issue pointed out by @club-wars-player wouldn't exist. If then the alliance is dissolved then this affects nothing.

A

I say D

CWP's idea is a good point. 

I'll post my thoughts later

Why Nightly if alliance breaks then the match stays null .

In reality if we consider a team as x another team as y and third team as z then if x has an alliance with y and y is attacking z through alliance then after alliance breaks the soldiers stay stationed in enemy territory.

I agree with that.

D because i break r2gm alliance they shd not get any benefit lol

d

Here's my opinion: A

An alliance is a bonding relationship between club kingdoms in order to accomplish a goal in the war, such as vanquish a common enemy.

If after the battles began but have not ended the two kingdoms get quarrelsome the treaty is still in force for the agreed operation. If clubs could remove alliances and that would change the result of the battle then alliances would be broken all the time. 

Kingdoms should be weary of making alliances with kingdoms that will back down or will be only trying to take advantage (making an alliance so they can attack someone then remove it) the World leaders should know the motives of the major world leaders and thus they should know the motive for the alliance.

Anyway, the troops are already in the territory thus they cannot just be kicked. They're there for  the agreed mission and cannot be removed until the mission is complete.

So end of case?