Concerning the cities of Steadfast Shield

But the action benefits the player that operates the two accounts, that is what I was getting at.

Edited by Subatoi - 06 Apr 2012 at 20:32

If alliances had a strategy of having players develop accounts and then suspending them to allow other players to siege them, this would be equally wrong.  It also seems to me that it would be poor strategy.  So far as I know, no alliance has attempted to do this thus far.

Subatoi wrote: But the action benefits the player that operates the two accounts, that is what I was getting at. If say I irritated Luna and she banned EF so I just possed Subatoi and I attempted to re-claim EF's cities through siege by Subatoi's account, you all would say as previously spoken above "this violates the rules,  this is helping the account out". But having the two accounts in the same alliance that could potentially break sieges on each others cities would be helping the accounts out in an unfair way, no? You'd be and people are, controlling potentially 20 cities at the same time, where two different people controlling ten cities could log in at different intervals and send reinforcements to break sieges at different times, thus potentially rendering a greater siege damage to the friend's cities, as it is currently you could be in the same situation but with the ability to quickly check your other account for incoming attacks, ready up defenses in 20 cities in a few minutes. Is this making sense?

Yes, it does make sense. - however, the players in the game (I am speaking for myself and applying this as a generalization, so I am sorry if this offends anyone) do not raise two cities to boost only one account.  They level both up at the same time and enjoy the game.  Leveling only one account (while using the other to pump the first full of resources and gold, will speed up the first account tremendously.  Then this first account can begin a second account and pump that one up at lightning speed with resources from the first account.  In essence, playing accounts like this will speed up your growth by probably 4x (that is a guess, not an actual number).  This is in the game mechanics, but I would frown upon such tactics.

Also, notice the population of these cities...  It is theoretically possible to have lvl 20 production in every city without boosting up any real population buildings...  thus having the illusion of the cities being "worthless."  Having cities lying around that are low population but also boost resources is ideal if you "farm" them later and ultimately claim them as your own.  Many would completely ignore such a low level city lying around because they would assume it to be worthless - they would, instead, go to target the high population inactives...  So taking them over with your 2nd (newly created) alt would speed this up even further... 

Now, as this is not against the set rules of the game, I believe the word used was "unethical"

 

I am not accusing SS of this, I am simply pointing out that this is not how accounts should be used...  but  this is all off topic.

The point of this thread was the claim over these cities... 

does he have the right to claim them?  Yes. 
Does Curse have the right to counter claim them?  Yes.

May the best (man, woman, child, alliance, "Hell Bovine" - etc.) win.

Subatoi wrote: In the end you'll war over this but anyone that is actually interested in counter-claiming should do it in game instead of doing it in here.