I suggest that we change the game dynamics in wars so that a Crewleader cannot be shot and killed until every loyal member of their family that is 5 days or older and has been a member of that family for at least 5 days is taken out first.

I think this change could add some interesting and fun dynamics to take-downs and wars to make them last a bit longer and make them more engaging to every member of a family from earner on up and I'm interested in hearing what everyone else thinks about this as a possibility.

Sometimes CL's are taken out and their members are allowed to join other families. Your suggestion makes this impossible. I've been gone a while, so the environment may have changed, but most of the take downs I participated in were purely CL and hand hits, while the rest were soaked up into other families.

Also, if I'm a CL and my members start dying in droves, the shooter would be dead long before they got a chance to get to me. I'm confident current CL's would agree with this sentiment.

Aye my suggestion makes it impossible for a CL to be taken out allowing their members to join other families so long as he has loyal crew members that have to be taken out first.  

This was the main point of this suggestion.

I got that. What I'm saying is that at certain times, just a CL and/or their hands need to die, while the rest of their family is being allowed to live and carry on with another family.

You're suggesting that if a CL should make a deadly mistake, his/her entire crew pay for it as well?

Aye, that's part of the risk that people should take when joining a family.  After all, a deadly mistake is only one to the people that have the power to decide what is and what isn't one.   When you join up with leadership and set your status to loyal it should indicate faith in them in having the ability to pave their own path and if they fail it falls on everyone no matter what choices they make.

With this change player freedom would still be allowed.  People could still leave a family just as freely as they are able to do so now with the same potential in game consequences.  And a good thing to add to this would be making 3 day inactive Crewleaders exempt from this rule allowing them to be removed with minimal fuss.

Hmm. Suppose I didn't look at it from that angle. Would definitely make war last longer, and as such, a bit more interesting. Just not sure any shooter/s would last long enough to hit the target CL. As I said, been gone a while, so I've no clue of the politics and gun might these days, but I can't imagine it's changed too much in 4 years.

Why should people that are under Made Man die? They are not full members of the family and have not taken any oath such as a Made Man would have. This is why they are free to move around as they please. They are not "part" of a family. 

People already bitch when entire families are wiped out. Scorched Earth as some call it. "Why did the Gangsters die?" This would just make the bitching even worse. We're trying to encourage game growth and something such as this would just drive more people from it with questions like "Why did I die? I didn't do anything!", "Why are all the Earners dying? They aren't even Made!"

This should be a decision left to those that are involved in a war or takedown. We should be able to decide if we let members live or if we kill everyone. 

I think the mechanics that Diego has introduced is interesting. It allows those as CL to actually last a wee while longer and put down a fight. So maybe rather than killing those under Made maybe until all made+ are dead can the CL be taken out. In any circumstance it makes sense. However, in any take down those that are doing the hit would log on to IRC or WA with the required number of hitters, their targets allocated and then once their down the CL would be targeted. So it doesn't really make a difference. Maybe one or two minutes breathing space. I just want to think of an angle that would allow CLs to actually fight back. They worked incredibly hard to get where they are. So yeah I'm all for making CLs actually being able to defend their honor. I just don't agree with those below made being killed. As Godfather Lillith rightly said however, this should also be in the hands of those involved in the takedown. I'm curious to find out what people have to say about this.

Alfred straightened his waistcoat, checked his pocket watch and went to attend to the needs of Master -BruceWayne- 

How about if we preserved the 1% chance on Crewleaders that still have loyal Made Men and up?  All attempts prior to removing them would count as a 1% attempt versus actual math preserving the potential for randomness in the game.

After reading Lillith's comment I can understand the need for a compromise for this game change to include only Made Men and up considering the current popular opinion on being Wise Guy and below (as much as I disagree with it).  

This game change is geared around allowing those that are being removed the chance to fight back and adds another hurdle for assailants to overcome.  What happens if Assailant A wackbacks on defender B and everyone else gets off a clean shot?  Well...the defenders family would be severely weakened but with one guy proed and a potential big gun open they'd at least be able to make an attempt at defending themselves in some way.

Exactly the point I was trying to make above.

Why not make it so before a CL or a hand can die they must have 0 fully trained bodyguards or something like that?

This suggestion basically forces people to play in a way they may not want to.

This affects three groups of players: killer CLs, target CLs, and crew members.

Killer CLs, who have been wiping cities every few weeks, now have to decide if they flood the obits before they kill the CL or after. I'd hate to force those people, wielding virtually absolute power, to make any decision that might cause them to shoot more people than they have to. They've been so peace-minded and delicate in their takedowns.

Target CLs, who have been getting wiped every few weeks, now have a shred of breathing room between them and death. Now it might actually require a whole HS to take them down as opposed to the same three people. I'm sure offering them any additional protection or leveling the playing field with the killer CLs could force them to make decisions independently, and that is a risk we cannot take.

Crew members, who are too weak to participate in takedowns or too poorly-informed to escape them, may be forced to be a bit more careful who they join. May be forced to think critically about their leader. May be forced to be involved in conflicts as opposed to just lining the obits. Again, these are risks we cannot entertain without serious harm to the game.

Sarcasm aside, this regime has killed thousands of players over the course of their ascension and reign. The idea that they may have to shoot more people than they want to as a reason not to afford their targets any modicum of defense or protection is a bit ludicrous. As for rogues, do we really believe that one guy with a bunch of kills ought to have a greater impact on the game than a dozen loyal Made Men? As long as BG wacking is still useless as fuck, smaller CLs could really use some help against the behemoths. 

And to be clear, it's not just CLs outside of LV and CH. If every CL were more than one shot away from death, maybe the game could realistically move towards some semblance of diplomacy or social strategy rather than simple hierarchy.