I think a lot goes against the current gameplay.
The diaspora from the market gets shortcut.
It is possible with a workaround: The enemy can capture buildings in one players territory. The ally could capture it back and have a small territory to start from. This is a very useful, rare and fun mechanic. I like it in this form as it is. This way, as a team, one can have more dense towers.
This may result in the border player placing their fields at the pocket player and the pocket player placing their military buildings at the border player.
The current movement mechanic gets disturbed. The civilians wouldn't need to flee back and the military from the pocket would already be at the front. Making attack timing very different (worse).
But what I'd like: If you could just place a building foundation at the ally from your cost, it belongs to your ally and (maybe) is of his civilization. Often times a player gets attacked always from one flank and he wouldn't place a tower there. Then one sends them the resources and he could build it. Same for barracks, forts etc..
Hello Bennett and welcome to the community,
those are interesting thoughts! Thank you for sharing them!
Indeed, snapping of Walls to other objects e.g. Walls of allied players would be great.
This paragraph ignores the Team Bonuses, which would be strategically enhanced by your idea.
I think of it as a social problem that shouldn't be limited by technical solutions.
I like the idea of having the possibility to build only a small amount of buildings (quality or quantity) in allied territory.
To be honest, it would be easier to read, if you would use the 'Numbered list' function for numbered lists as well as paragraph spacing for new paragraphs. But that note from me should not influence my thoughts on your ideas.