Short answer: yes. Longer answer: what actually gets accounts caught, what the penalties look like, and what raises or lowers your exposure — from the people who build one.
Yes. Automating gameplay breaks InnoGames' rules for Forge of Empires, and accounts do get banned for it. That applies to click macros, to standalone bot programs, and to browser extensions like this one. Anyone telling you their tool is undetectable is selling you something.
The useful question isn't whether there's risk — there is, and it's yours. It's what the risk is actually made of, because "be careful" is not something you can act on. The rest of this page is that, written by people with an obvious commercial interest in you deciding it's worth it. Weigh it accordingly.
Forge of Empires' Terms of Service prohibit using bots or scripts that automatically collect resources, and prohibit click-bots or scripts that minimise manual clicks. The wording targets software acting in your place — not software that shows you things.
That distinction is real and it matters, because it's why the extension ecosystem around this game looks the way it does:
SentryFoE performs actions. It sits on the prohibited side of that line, and no amount of technical nuance moves it across.
Detection is overwhelmingly server-side behaviour analysis, not something scanning your computer for installed software. InnoGames sees the stream of actions your account sends and looks for patterns a person doesn't produce. In practice that means a small number of signals do most of the work:
Actions landing at identical intervals — every 3.00 seconds, all day. Humans are erratic; fixed-interval scripts are the single clearest signature there is.
Continuous activity for eight, twelve, twenty-four hours. Nobody plays like that, and uninterrupted uptime is trivial to measure.
More fights per hour than the interface physically allows a person to click through, or perfect play at volumes no one sustains.
The most underrated one. Guildmates and opponents notice a sector cleared at 4am every night. Human reports put a human reviewer on your account.
Notice what isn't on that list: the specific tool you used. There's no signature scan looking for a named extension. What's visible to the game is the shape of your account's activity — which is why the same tool can be low-risk in careful hands and obvious in careless ones.
InnoGames can issue a warning, restrict the account temporarily, or close it permanently — at their discretion, with no obligation to follow a fixed schedule. Players commonly report a temporary suspension for a first offence and permanent closure for a second, but that is an observed pattern rather than published policy, and nobody is entitled to the first step.
Two things worth knowing before you weigh it up. Appeals for automation rarely succeed — this isn't a category where accounts routinely get reinstated. And the loss isn't only the account: it's every year of city building, every Great Building level, and any money that went into it. Decide as though the worst case is permanent, because it can be.
Being straight about this is more useful to you than a sales pitch, so: this tool is automation, it violates the Terms of Service, and using it can cost you your account. Everything below is about the shape of the risk, not its removal.
None of that makes automation undetectable, sanctioned, or consequence-free. It's why we think this is meaningfully lower-risk than a naive script firing on a fixed timer — which is a different claim from safe. The behavioural signals in the section above are still the ones that matter, and most of them are set by how you run it, not by what it's built on.
This is the part with an actual answer. If you're going to do this, these choices matter more than the tool:
If your account is one you'd genuinely be devastated to lose — years of building, real money spent, a Great Building set you'll never rebuild — the honest recommendation is don't automate it. Not with this, not with anything. Full disclosure is on the Terms & risk disclosure page.
Yes. Automating gameplay breaks InnoGames' Terms of Service, and accounts are banned for it. No tool can promise otherwise — anything claiming to be undetectable is selling you something.
Primarily through server-side behaviour analysis rather than scanning your computer. The signals that stand out are inhuman consistency — identical intervals between actions, sessions running far longer than a person plays, and activity continuing around the clock without a break. Player reports also put human reviewers on accounts.
Warnings, temporary suspensions, or permanent closure, at InnoGames' discretion. Players commonly report a temporary suspension first and permanent closure on a second offence, though InnoGames doesn't publish a fixed schedule and isn't bound to one. Appeals for automation rarely succeed.
There's a real distinction. Extensions that only read and display information — overlays, calculators, city planners — are widely used and generally tolerated, because you still make every decision. Anything that performs actions for you is automation, and that's what the rules prohibit. SentryFoE performs actions, so it falls on the prohibited side.
No. It changes the detection surface, not the rules. Calling the client's own service methods avoids the fixed-interval mouse-event pattern a click macro produces, but the activity is still automation, still against the Terms of Service, and still actionable. Lower risk isn't no risk.
The exposure per account is the same, but the consequence isn't — which is the actual point. Plenty of people automate on an account they could stand to lose and play their main by hand. Be aware that InnoGames' rules also cover multi-accounting, so that decision carries its own separate risk.