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.
- 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.
- 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)
- Create a warchief position / designation, to limit those able to manipulate a team strategy and allow a leader to delegate the responsibility.
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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).
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:
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!