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

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.

Cookie Settings