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

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.

100 votes to this post! Make the wars more complex! So that alliances have to put real planning and strategy into them, not just manipulate the current system.

The best war system would be one in which any strategy can be countered and the gameplay is more dynamic and less repetitive/tedious.

If you could choose your team position in the war lines instead of random allocation, and just like a real war, you cannot attack a position in the second row until you break through the same position row in front of it, and so on…
Lastly, imagine bonus rewards being based on things like breaking your way through every line to reach the rear.

This would be a very minimal update with potential benefits:
Alliance cohesion- teams strategise around where they place their teams, do the strongest hold the front as sheildwall? do they hold the back as anchor and weaker teams drain the enemy before they get to the anchors?
An added layer of depth- a slightly weaker alliance with better strategy in their defence lineup and strategic decisions in who and where they attack, could beat a stronger alliance.

The chance to add a bonus reward for great teamwork would give alliances more reason to do well and strategise together in wars… The bonus reward could even simply be a point bonus to aid in the win.

Just a basic concept, perhaps there are complications I’m missing but I would see this as potentially easy to do and a lot more of a ‘war’ feeling in alliance wars :slight_smile:

I like the concept. Unsure of the true difficulty of implementing such a feature. Could call it Siege Mode.

1 Like

Conserning this 2 levels of war aid, why not make it 4 and let this depend on the amount of adjacent teams left. Which will be a number between 0 and 3.
So if you have 3 you’ll receive the max aid with none left you’ll receive the minimum.

Corner entry points will be weaker in aid automatically in this scenario which will require more tactics again regarding positions

Just some extra food for thought.

Question?

If advancing requires breaking through say the first row thus meaning every player is stuck attacking that first row to break through (please correct me if I am wrong here).

Hiw does that affect weaker players who’s teams wouldn’t stand a chance against that lineup. They would either be left out or just slaughtered.

This idea sounds great for very active alliances who co-ordinate really well but wouldn’t work so good for those that don’t, IMO.

I understand this is a suggested strategy form which sounds nice and I like it but would it really suit every allience or force alliences to be more strict in the way they do wars?

@Ozy1

This was already brought to attention earlier by TomV93 and he also came up with a simple solution:

Agree with that suggestion but what are the chances of this being implemented if it does suit every allience equally thus only on the off chance that some Alliences may use it.

Would it also be an allience vote as to whether it’s used or just the leaders decision?

Sorry google translator.
It seems to me that the war of alliances in the form as it has now become of little interest. From time to time one and the same tactics for everyone. Why not diversify the principle of war itself, for example in this way:
In preparation for the war, the leader of the alliance determines the construction of a field for the players, for example:

  1. Four of a kind - square
  2. Wedge
  3. Phalanx
    etc.
    The main principle is the lines of defense, you can attack only the first line of defense, after his victory - the second and so on. To put strong players on the first line or weak at first - the leader of the alliance chooses.
    Give players the tools to create real tactics, and not the tedious monotony that the war has turned into.

QOL - permenant page for defence set-up for all war aids

Everytime we start a new war aid, there is this annoying period where you have to stalk members to change their defence. Obviously the effect is biggest before and after rush wars.
Isn’t it possible to create a fixed defence war page where you can put in your defence for the 5 different wars? Then your defence switches automatically to the right defence corresponding with the active war aid.

1 Like