[New Feature idea] Deeper mechanics in Alliance Wars: a complete proposal

Hello everyone,

I have been toying with an idea which I believe has matured enough to put it in front of this fine community for feedback. In fact, I created an account for the express purpose of sharing it, although I lurked the shadows of this forum quite a bit.

The goal is to create a deeper level of strategy to Alliance Wars, to allow for more upsets, in a way that will not be too complicated or time-consuming to implement. This proposal is not about loot, nor any sort of player reward.

This will be a rather long post, so I will provide a small abstract below. The main idea is the core of the feature proposed, and the optional ideas merely companions which could complement the feature well and offer side-benefits, but are not necessary for the feature to work.


                                        **Abstract**

Main idea:

  1. Let alliances choose the distribution of their teams on the battlefield, and only allow attacks on teams facing the bridges displayed one the battlefield, or next to a team which has been brought down.

Optional ideas:

  1. If the team of the leader (or war chief, see optional idea #2 below) is taken down, the other teams no longer receive the benefit of the war aid (including if optional idea #3 is implemented)
  2. Create a warchief position / designation, to limit those able to manipulate a team strategy and allow a leader to delegate the responsibility.
  3. Limit the number of war aids (members/2?) and create an active or passive distribution.

Intro (background and rationale, you can skip it if you want to get to the meat quickly).

First, a bit about myself to let you know why I believe AW needs more depth. I have been a co-leader and war chief in two alliances, my current one being the Unholy Grail (ranked in the top 400 alliances, top 300 in our good days). We are quite a competitive alliance—although leagues from the best ones—, with a time-tested defensive strategy and several offensive plays.
But AW has shown all the depth it had to offer for us : we have excellent discipline, participation and time management, yet strategy and team effort can only go so far in such an open system.
With the new AW match making, we usually rack in a couple wins, then concede an easy victory to a much stronger team.
About this system, I understand the need for it with the creation of war chests (everyone needs a shot at ascmat) but aim to balance it with that proposal. My idea really took shape around that, and is somewhat meritocratic in essence, but I’ll let you be the judge of its potential in terms of game depth. Please upvote if you find it worth consideration.

                                        **Core feature**

By now, many of you may be familiar with the representation of the battlefield with a war grid, so that’s what I’ll use to present how the system would work. For those unfamiliar, the white letters (horizontally) and numbers (vertically) around the opposition side give coordinates. For instance, C2 represent the golden player with a red box drawn around them in the opposition camp.

The idea is that you can only attack teams facing the bridges or those next to a fallen team. So initially you would only be able to attack the A6, C6 and E6 teams (red arrows). If you then dispatch team A6, any member of your team would be able to attack the teams A5 or B6 (blue arrows). If then your team dispatches A5, you would be able to attack teams A4 or B5 (purple arrows) and so on. It would take coordinated team efforts to progress up the battlefield to a target point, but a disorganised approach would still be possible and could yield nice results. Resets would still work exactly as they do now.
One advantage of proceeding this way is that is easy to implement: it follows a strait forward path.

The interesting bit is that every alliance would be able to create their own formation by placing their teams on the battlefield however they please during the preparation phase. This will open the way for many possible strategies (strong defenses up front and weaker teams in the back, so that an extra effort will be required to get to the easier points; a motley of weaker and stronger teams to limit exposure; etc.)

This placement would be saved from war to war, so that we do not have to do it again every three days, and would be a prerogative reserved to the leader and co-leaders, or to the war chief. There is space for a second button next to the “info” one when selecting a team on the battlefield.

swtich%20button

Like so. The button would be visible only to leaders and co-leaders, or to warchiefs (see optional ideas). This would work exactly as switching places between two building in your stronghold: once you select switch, you can either cancel the action at the bottom of the screen, or tap another team in your alliance so that the selected team switches place with it.

                                        **Optional features**

After the really simple core feature, several ideas can be implemented to further the strategic stakes. That is the aim of the first optional feature: giving an incentive to go after the leader.

  1. No leader, no bonus.
    Throughout history, armies were often heavily impacted by the loss of the generals commanding them, so taking them out whenever possible became an objective. I would like to reflect this idea by creating an incentive to take down the leader: when the defense team of a leader is taken out, the entire alliance loses the war bonuses (arrows, heal, attack boost). Protecting your leader and dispatching the opponent’s leader would then become a priority objective.
    To spot the leaders more easily, their boxes would be golden instead of red or blue (see picture of the battlefield above). This would be particularly interesting, because it would force alliances to make hard choices about the placement of their stronger defenses: do you protect the leader at all cost, knowing you might leave a side weaker, or do you protect all entry points equally?

  2. War chiefs
    Or however you want to call it. Many alliances have them, so creating an official designation would not be outlandish. By default, the war chief would be the leader, but they could pass on the mantle to a member of their choosing (it would likely be an option on the war tab of the alliance menu).
    The war chief (and the leader, if they are not the same player) would be then be the one(s) able to switch places between teams on the battlefield. This would mainly serve to keep that power out of the hands of co-leaders, knowing some alliances have all co-leaders to avoid toxic members working their way up the hierarchy then kicking everyone out of the alliance. If the previous optional proposal is implemented, the war chief would then be the one with the golden box, with all the consequences that it implies. Of course, a new war chief could only be named outside of war (and possibly during war prep).

  3. War aid
    The idea would be to limit the number of war bonuses available. I would suggest an amount equivalent to the numbers of players divided by two and rounded up, so that alliances with 29 or 30 members would get 15, alliances with 27 or 28 members would get 14 and so on. The aim is once again to force alliances to make strategic choices. Players with a bonus would be singled out with the icon corresponding to the bonus in place under the number of remaining flags (which should then be moved higher). Like so:

war%20bonus

I see two mutually exclusive ways of implementing this:

  • The active way: the leaders and co-leaders could distribute war bonus (also on the war tab of the alliance menu, below the war status indicator and only during war preparation). The war aid system would remain the same: both alliances would benefit from and distribute the same bonus, displayed in the same way. This would promote proactive strategic choices.
  • The passive way: the number of bonuses available to the alliance would be randomly distributed. Here, there could be no common bonus for the whole war, it could determined randomly on a team-by team basis—so that both alliances would have a motley of different bonuses. This would be interesting to give an edge to weaker teams: a team that would not normally be assigned to a key position could become viable in a more pivotal role because it has a bonus, while other strong teams do not have one.

So there it is, the extent of my proposal as of yet. I hope to receive some constructive criticism which would enable me to improve it further, and hope at least parts of it will catch the interest of the community and of the developers.
I would like to thank LegendaryErebus from the MadBananas for (involuntarily) helping me protect everyone’s privacy with a Dawa touch while making the battlefield, and to thank you for reading this post. The floor is yours!

I actaully like those ideas.

I’m out of votes, but a big +1 here. Wars are becoming tedious. These ideas seem straightforward to implement and would reward tactics and teamwork more highly, which is a good thing.

The one optional idea I’m not a fan of is the change to War Aid. At a minimum, it needs to be the same war aid across all teams on both sides, both to ensure equity but also to enable defense teams to be set accordingly. (E.g. I may want more healers on a team with Arrows War Aid, but more strikers with Healing War Aid.)

Without War Aid, victories are really too easy. Perhaps instead of your proposal that some teams have no Aid, there would be a weak and strong form of each Aid type. The strong type would revert to weak if the war leader’s team falls.

There are some mechanics questions that would need to be addressed, but they’re not insurmountable. E.g., do individual teams respawn on a timer still, and does that then change which teams can attacked? Does War Aid become active again whenever the war leader’s team respawns, either on timer or mass reset?

I hope @mhalttu gives your ideas some consideration.

7 Likes

Thanks the constructive answer, much food for thoughts.

At a minimum, it needs to be the same war aid across all teams on both sides, both to ensure equity but also to enable defense teams to be set accordingly.

I would tend to agree for the sake of simplicity (it would be hard to get players to change their teams according to their bonuses). Equity, though, is also jeopardised by the quality of the boards we get. We live and die at the whims of the RNG gods.

Perhaps instead of your proposal that some teams have no Aid, there would be a weak and strong form of each Aid type. The strong type would revert to weak if the war leader’s team falls.

I love this idea. There could either be a stronger effect, or small additional effect. The arrow barrage could for instance give a small (5% capped at 40%?) but undispellable blinding effect (like their item counterpart), the attack aid could provide a small life drain (5% of damage inflicted, stackable up to a certain point?), and the healing boost could provide a bit of defense (given the way in which defense works, it would mostly serve to counter defense down heroes).

do individual teams respawn on a timer still, and does that then change which teams can attack?

Yes to the first part of the question. I see no need to change the timer.
For the second part, it was indeed unprecise. I imagined that you needed a continuous line of beaten team to target another team. Eg, if teams [A6], [A5] and [A4] are down, you can attack team [A3], [B4], [B5] and [B6], but if team [A5] respawns, your options fall back to [A5] and [B6]. However, after beating [A5] again, you can proceed to attack [A3] or [B4] as [A4] is already down.
But I could see it working with any team adjascent to a beaten team no matter if there is a continuous path of beaten teams starting from a bridge. I would give resets a double-edge sword quality (you would loose all your in-roads and the leader respawns).

Does War Aid become active again whenever the war leader’s team respawns, either on timer or mass reset?

Indeed. Taking down the leader a single time is accomplished easily enough. The challenge would be much more interesting if you had to contend with bonuses after the resets, especially towards the end, when most good teams have been used and the goal is merely to rack in as much points as possible.

3 Likes

This idea reminds me of Stratego! You got my last remaining vote I have been holding onto!! Love it!

Thanks for putting all the time and thought into this proposal. Even if it doesn’t end up yielding results or change in the war system, it shows your quality as a community member. Well done.

5 Likes

Currently, each team member can select an opponent on his/her own. With the proposed approach they’ll have to wait until someone makes a way through first (most likely strong) teams. Taking in account some alliances with members from absolutely different time zones waiting might be quite boring.

3 Likes

Fantastic ideas @CragHack! I had to go un-vote elsewhere to make certain to up vote hear. :grin:

1 Like

I hope that those reading this don’t focus so much on the use of the word “upsets” near the beginning. The proposed changes allowing for more “upsets” really just means “rewards an alliance for a ‘better’ strategy”. I only mention that because I got stuck on that word myself while reading through the first time.

I know we all aren’t to the point of the top alliances, but the fact that a couple top alliances agreed to face off on a war by using only 4* defenses is telling. I may not be 100% bored with AW, but there are plenty of people out there who are.

My only concern is that the majority of players out there are not able to be “on call” for AW. Do you feel these changes would necessitate even more coordination in each alliance? If my reading comp was not operating at 100% on that then feel free to brush the concern to the side.

Still has my vote.

1 Like

I love the idea, but I wonder if this will not be too much (emotionally) work for some alliances.

The alliance I am in does not use any tactic during wars, apart from ‘‘big guys hit big guys, small guys hit small guys - during the first round’’. We are casual players who happen to invest quite some time into the game. I would not mind to think of a suitable tactic as being a Co-Leader, but I can imagine our Alliance Leader would not want to do this due to a lack of time.

Perhaps there are more of our alliances out there with casual players/leaders who ’‘are not able to be on call for AW and don’t find the need for more coordination attractive.’'

I believe it might be a very nice change for near-top and top alliances, but the middle-range and lower alliances might have other wishes.


SGG is now working on optimizing this process. I expect that even if they want to think about this proposal, I’m afraid it will not yet appear on their agenda soon.

Anyway, the first thought that crossed my mind was:

‘‘What if we allow alliances to choose from 2 battle mechanics? The current mechanics and your proposed mechanics.’’

That would be a nice solution for every alliance, if the matchmaking results will not become too unbalanced again.

1 Like

Hey there,

I really love the idea and concept, also it shouldn’t be so hard to implement and makes wars a little more entertaining. While having an strategy right now is a plus, strategy has no real impact when facing off a 5x bigger opponent, if this idea was implemented lower Alliances would have a chance against huge Alliances if all cards are played well. Huge +1.

I’ve been thinking about a similar proposal until I saw this one, very well explained! I’d add a few more things though (might have missed them while reading, if that’s the case, sorry!):

  • Allow rearguard attacks, for example, Team A makes it all the way through to A1 and C1, allow attacking B1 and then backwards (B2-6).
  • As for AIDs, I’d add some bonus attack % when facing rearguard and w/e bonus perk the opponent may have when the whole Line 1 is down.

Gonna track this one, keep up with the good work!

1 Like

First I’d like to say how appreciative I am of the way everyone voices their enthusiasm and concerns. Not every community is as civil and mature as this one. Also, glad to see my ideas pick up some steam. :slightly_smiling_face:

@SuuriKoira, @TomV93,

I’ll answer to you both at the same time, because your concerns have a shared point: what about casual players/members who might be impacted? I’d say that inevitably, when deepening game strategy, the game becomes less casual-friendly. And AW are a marginal part of the game, one from which players can even opt out.

That being said, I see upsides to this scheme. It may foster more communication, and could incite players who normally wouldn’t to engage with their alliance, which is something many leaders of more casual alliances want (at least according to comments I read in the Leadership groups on Line). Everyone wins when player involvement is on the rise, the players, the community and SG. Less people quit the game, and more engage further with it. The only real loser might be those players’ wallets. :sweat_smile:

Additionally, a strategy with this feature wouldn’t require constant coordination, and the same principle of “attack someone your size” could be retained—although alliances with better coordination would have an advantage. If weaker players get on during the first hours of the war, with only strong opponents facing them, they still have over 20h to check the game again. The war lasting 24h certainly allows many more casual players to connect at least twice. As for the issue of International alliances, ours is very much global and this has seldom been an issue in war. The war and the respawn timers are usually long enough to accomodate players from different zones.

The choice between battle mechanics would certainly be an option, but I do not believe that it would be something that SG is likely to consider. Unformity is considerably simpler.

@Ender
Hey Ender! Yes, I do not mean that players would get upset. :wink:
I don’t believe those changes would require more coordination, but they certainly would reward coordination more. Especially since wins now give access to the rewards from the war chest. Although thanks to the current match making system, many casual alliances will end up facing other casual alliances frequently.

@Tamertain

  • Allow rearguard attacks, for example, Team A makes it all the way through to A1 and C1, allow attacking B1 and then backwards (B2-6).

That is indeed part of my idea, but it might not have been very clear (I’ll eventually work on rephrasing it and adding all the great feedback that I received). As long as there is a continuous path of defeated teams, you could attack any adjacent teams. Having defeated teams from A6 to A1, you could attack any team from the B column (B1 because A1 is down, B2 because A1 and A2 are down, B3 because A1, A2 and A3 are down etc). Having then for instance defeated B3, you could attack C3, B2, B4, and any other team to which you have a continuous path toward. But if A2 were to respawn, you wouldn’t be able to attack C3, B2 or C4 until defeating again A2 (A2 would cut your continuous line from the bridge, despite A3 and B3 being down).

I know it’s hard to visualise with coordinates like this, but if you draw a grid on a piece of paper, it becomes much clearer.

  • As for AIDs, I’d add some bonus attack % when facing rearguard and w/e bonus perk the opponent may have when the whole Line 1 is down.

The idea of implementing flanking mechanics is interesting! It could be added to the optional ideas.

1 Like

I think the issue of needing to coordinate more, and possibly wait for an appropriate turn to take could be helped some by granting all flags at once, instead of in two rounds. At least that way you don’t get stuck waiting on both a team to hit, and having flags on hand. And stronger and/or more active team members could help clear a path earlier on, for others to follow up on.

Our alliance is quite communicative, but even still, I’d like to see more tools in the game for communication — and I think that’d be all the more necessary with a deeper strategy to AW than the current system. At the least, it’d be useful to have something like pinned announcements, so things don’t get lost in chat. But ideally I’d want to see a way to keep War-specific notes, where team members could give each other tips on specific teams, and declare intention on who’s hitting which teams to clear a path.

1 Like

I think the issue of needing to coordinate more, and possibly wait for an appropriate turn to take could be helped some by granting all flags at once, instead of in two rounds.

That is a simple and elegant compromise. I’ll add it to the additional ideas.

Our alliance is quite communicative, but even still, I’d like to see more tools in the game for communication — and I think that’d be all the more necessary with a deeper strategy to AW than the current system. At the least, it’d be useful to have something like pinned announcements, so things don’t get lost in chat. But ideally I’d want to see a way to keep War-specific notes, where team members could give each other tips on specific teams, and declare intention on who’s hitting which teams to clear a path.

Both of those would be great. But perhaps they would be better served having their own topic. You should suggest them, I’d certainly support the idea. :slightly_smiling_face:

I realy think it isn’t a good idea.
A lot of ideas appearing on this forum are specially create for best players. But there are also beginners and their alliances. I analysed Your idea of attacking members across the bridge. If it was in game, my alliance would never win a war, because on all cases of enemies setting the best players - event stronger than the strongest player on my alliance - are set beside a bridge.
We would lost whole war energy to destroy 3-4 players…

It would be great to ser some kind of tactics in war, but, be honest, best players on alliances will be used to make a really hardcore wall to destroy… :frowning:

1 Like

Interesting ideas. Personally I’d be happy if we could just set 6 defense teams which have to be defeated in order.

Imo the defense aid given to every defence team appears to give an unfair advantage to teams with strong power. For example… A team with a power of 3000+ attacks a team of 2500+ the defending team is given the aid which levels the playing field. However in my alliance’s case we have prominently lower powered teams of 2000-2700 and we’ve been pitted against opponents with teams of 3000+. So when our 2500 team has no choice but to attack a 3000+ team we also have to face their added defense aid making the fight grossly unfair. My suggestion is the aid should be granted only in the case of an unfair match-up and should only be awarded to the lower powered team…

I really like this proposal and already voted, there’s just a few things that we should probably adjust.

Have you though about respawns? How will that work? Will ypu have to kill the same target again to be able to move down?

Also, I agree with the proposal of having a weak and a strong aid, the weak is up once the commander is down. Otherwise its too easy, offense is heavily favored in this game.

I changed a vote for this. Great idea. I think keeping the respawns on defeated players is a must. That way your members who participate will have to attack in a timely manner to reach the rear targets. However, I think the respawns should change so previous defeated heros refresh sooner. A mechanic will have be implemented that as you move back between rows the respawn times change with the progress.
** base refresh time depends on number of rows in defense. Example 3 rows (11-15 opt-ins)

  • 6A defeated 3hr reset
  • 5A defeated 3hr reset, 6A -1hr remainder of time
  • 4A defeated 3hr reset, 5A -1hr and 6A -1hr reset

Imagine a weed growing back lol. as mention before, have all 6 attacks available. And instead of having the “war chief” be a target to remove or hinder field support, place “high value targets” on the back line. Preferably on B1 and D1 rows on the back field so u cant just go down the bridge rows. These two spot would be high lighted and worth x2 the points. The layout for the alliance should totally be random with the highest defense members set as the HVTs. The issue you will face if alliances can set thier defense, what would keep them from placing the three strongest players with heavy heals in front of the bridges?

@juzekxx02 Being in a beginner alliance, you should be faced with other beginners. With multiple points of entry, it would take way too many strong players to block you. See the explanation below.
To force you to attack 1 strong players before reaching a strong target, they would need to cover A6, C6, E6, so it would take 3 strong players. To force you to attack 2 strong players, they would have to cover A6, B6, C6, D6, E6, A5, C5 and E5, so 8 strong players. That is already more than most beginner alliance could handle with the current system. To force you to attack 3 strong players, they would have to cover A6, B6, C6, D6, E6, A5, B5, C5, D5, E5, A4, C4 and E4, so 13 strong players, and so on. With the wall technique, it takes X-2 strong teams to force a team to attack Y strong teams, where X=5Y. So you’d be alright. :wink:

@KingArchur I considered that, but ultimately it would make war too easy. My current alliance could without a doubt manage to go through all 6 teams of some players with a proper strategy (waiting, plus 4 resets). With the current system, we easily do 2 resets each war. If the 4000tp team disappeared once beaten, we’d maul the opposition, and the opposition would maul us right back.

@pfabulousmumma I disagree. Attack always have the advantage. I often take out teams with 600 tp more than my attack team even with the war aid. If you struggle this much, take a look at Jimme and Zero’s infographic on raid team architecture, perhaps it will help you (second one).

@jzinser Thanks for the support! I haven’t had time to update the OP yet, I’ll come around to do it eventually. In the meantime, Kerridoc had the same question. Here was my answer:

@NDarkNS Thanks for the feedback! I like the idea of B1 and D1 “sensitive spots”, but I’m not a fan of reducing the timers with progression. It would make resets a bit redundant, and most of all it would give too much advantage for blocking the bridges with strong teams. With my proposal as it is, I think other strategies are viable (only blocking two points of entry to really secure the leader’s position, leaving a wing weaker creating checkered or criss-crossed patterns of stronger and weaker teams to even out the board and make progression painful all around, etc.) Diversifying war strategies is really my goal.

1 Like

I love the ideas, but I’m with Doc on this. Two levels of strength on the field aid for defenses would be best or maybe adjusting the timer to regular speed or slower once the field general falls.

Cookie Settings