I think it’s a really interesting idea for alliances who are already dedicated and engaged in War.
I think casual alliances who are hitting without coordination would probably just ignore it, or find it annoying.
In the past when similar ideas have been brought up for more involved versions of War, it’s been suggested that alliances could choose which version to opt into, or perhaps have it be based on alliance rank. I think something like that would be useful for an idea like this, so alliances could be opted into or out of it as appropriate.
In terms of strategy, I think it could lead to some interesting teams. With a team totally hidden, for instance, you could potentially afford to stack multiple colors on a Defense, since the attacker wouldn’t know to stack against you.
It might also lead to some interesting behavior for first hits, deciding whether to go in strong or send a scout to find out what the team is and make note of it for later hits.
I assume you’re imagining the TP would still be visible, so people at least have a vague sense of what they’re getting themselves into?
Personally, I would like a new variant for wars. The special atlantis stages are a good start in my opinion. Image a starry night where your buffs and enemy nerfs only lasted one or two turns or the fog level where your heroes special attacks could actually miss (that would make rogues especially hard to kill). Another new war variant could be “topsy turvy” where, when a special fires, it has an X% to hit a random target (the only exception to that rule would be heroes who strike everyone)…
If people hate field aid, imagine a war boost like that. The rage. THE RAGE!!!
I really am of two minds on this one. I like the idea of war improvement and I know war has gotten somewhat stale for me personally, that being said I fear that a lot of people may not appreciate the loss of vision of enemy teams. I am very motivated to coordinate, but that is partially because I have read books such as The Art of War and some who haven’t read it might accuse me of pretending to be a know it all, when what I am trying to give is sound advice.
On balance I think the pros outweigh the cons, but unless some measure of choice were added to this, like the opt out or in mentioned earlier, I don’t think it will be very likely to be implemented anytime soon.
That said is there a thread where all these ideas can be collected so votes can be made there at this point? This is not a call to merge, but rather a future planning question for if threads like this start gaining traction.
I think it actually sounds interesting. Would it change my defense team strategy? Nope. Would it majorly screw with my attack strategy? For sure. I’d probably have to reassign my cleanup teams to scout duty instead. “Just send your weakest team in there and tell us what they’ve got, that way the rest of us know what to bring when we attack them.”
I don’t mind at all. And it does sound like it would be fun. A bit chaotic maybe? But as long as the chaos goes both ways, and my opponents are equally confused, we can both just hit each other blindly and end up with ridiculous score variations. Overall outcomes wouldn’t be much different from how wars already operate… combination of randomness, strategy, and communication… with extra emphasis on randomness… but boards already do that anyway.
Would it really, though? Obviously it could be an issue for the top 100 who already know each other. But for an alliance like mine wandering in the middle of nowhereland, fighting against a bunch of other alliances that no one has ever heard of, I kind of doubt that any of our opponents know anything about us, aside from what can be gleaned from perusing our alliance profile during war prep.
We’ve faced Russian alliances, German alliances, Brazilian alliances, Spanish-speaking, Arabic-speaking, Irish, Italian, presumably American and just about everything else in between… we never know what to expect from them going in, and I assume the opposite is true as well. I can check their alliance roster before the war and make educated guesses about what kind of team I think they might be, whether they’re active, experienced, coordinated, etc.; leader inactive for 200 days, maybe they’re disorganized? We’re only going into an 11 v. 11 war, they have 25 members, I try to guess which 11 of theirs will be participating…? So-and-so hasn’t been online in 3 days, maybe they won’t use their flags? Or maybe they will… So-and-so just joined their alliance 5 days ago, are they a ringer, or just passing through? This other so-and-so is level 55 and their raid defense team is all 3*, they only have 600 cups… obvious cup dropper… so what’s their real team power? I… have… no… idea. I can only guess.
Technically speaking, my alliance is still growing. Our already established warring members are always leveling up their benches. Our opponents don’t know that. Just as I don’t know what they’re up to behind the scenes, either. That’s all part of the fun. Honestly, I think it would get boring after a while if my alliance was all 30 maxed 5* heroes vs. other teams with all 30 maxed 5* heroes. 4400 teams vs. 4400 teams… who will win? Only the boards can decide! C’mon now. That’s not even fun.
I was thinking more growing alliances. Those that aren’t full and maybe have just a few heroes. Maybe three teams. Alliances that struggle to flip. They probably don’t communicate well either - too casual. I could see them getting frustrated and quitting.
Oh! Yo @FrenziedEye, what’s up!! Like the idea AND, I somehow HAD A VOTE!!! Even though I don’t mind field aid all that much, I also enjoy variation. This would certainly make war more interesting.
The only downside is that there would still be those that lose and only lost because “of that damn dumb fog” but did we really ever pay attention to them anyway?