More Alliance Teamwork

[Taylor5555]

While the idea for alliances is a a good one, what you can do is extremely limited. There needs to be more teamwork and alliance interaction involved. As of now, all you can really do is say you're a part of that alliance and then chat with the people in it, the most teamwork you can get is asking for a favor. This might as well be done in private chat or world chat among friends.

These are my ideas on the subject:

1. Possibly a way to help alliance members out with troop count, this doesn't mean you donate troops or anything but what we could do is simply have troops stationed there as backup, just in case your troops won't cut it in the battle. The other players troops would only be able to be used in defense, as it would make no sense for a level one to attack you with 5k cats or something like that. The player that stations the troops in the alliance members city would have full responsibility for them, this means they would have to keep up the crop production and if the troops are lost, would lose about half of the prestige they normally would. The player who is watching over the units would be in full command, but like I said, only on defense.
P.S. I don't remember if I posted this before but the commander, if he loses troops that he doesn't own/ the battle, will lose double prestige as an incentive to actively command.

I will expand more on this topic if you wish.

2. An alliance market would be very beneficial by offering a way to help out alliance members and driving the prices in the normal market most likely up, making it easier for them to make money should someone's alliance not have what they are looking for. This would make it helpful for selling each person resources or those who are trying to upgrade their title a chance to get it without worrying about others attempting to steal it.

3. This suggestion is much like #1 but would be used for alliance-wide battles. Whoever wants to help would garrison their troops in an area both parties decide on, then when they are ready one side would attack. They dint necessarily have to wait for them to be ready but this is underhanded and would most likely be looked down upon. The Alliance Leader would command the attack while the members could watch, vices would be able to make a suggestion about what to do by giving the command, this would then pop up to the leader and of they approve, would then activate like any other command. Everyone who participated would get a share of the prestige and the leader could also set a minimum troop count to avoid people abusing this by sending something like an infantry unit to get a share. The amount of troops used by each player could be taken into account and would create more of an alliance effort during the game.

4. More ranks and responsibilities. More ranks would give people something to look forward to, instead of being second in command directly from being an ordinary member. I don't have the actual ranks at the moment but if this idea catches on I would definitely expand on it. The responsibilities could be something as easy as recruitment, up to establishing alliances with others or declaring war. The Leader would be entitled to all responsibilities as well as give the others theirs. The members would also be given more of a role by giving them an easy responsibility such as the recruitment or merely trying to help establish a connection for those in command and those who need help or need accepted to the alliance. I will also expand on these should the general public approve.

5. Rebellions, this wouldn't be a member merely leaving to begin their own alliance which is at war with the previous alliance but could be done by offering a chance for the leader to step down if he becomes inactive and the alliance is in need of the leader. If the leader doesn't reply to this within an amount of time that will also be decided if people agree with this he will be able to be forcibly removed from the position by having whoever wants to be leader send a letter to everyone and then they may vote in a separate alliance tab for that person or anyone else who wants to be leader.

I would just like to say thank you for reading and I'm sorry for not going into extreme detail yet but I don't want to go in all at once if the idea is going to fail anyway. Please, reply asking for any details you want or any other ideas you think should be added. If you want to you could always establish your own topic about that but some people only come up with the idea, not always the details. Thanks!



UPDATE:
okay, I'm going to begin taking the poll into more consideration and will be looking at the results by Saturday of next week. The two with the least amount of votes will be thrown from this thread and put into an alternate one to create room. It will also be taken into consideration, but priority will be given to the three that make it. The results will be posted and the most supported idea will be posted in 2-3 weeks, then I will contact support directly with a plan for it. So please, take the time to use the poll if there is an idea you like.

[Taylor5555]

Lol sorry if how long it is is scaring people from reading/posting. I'll post a highly summarized version here:

1. Position Troops with allies

2. Alliance Market

3. Alliance wide battles

4. Moree ranks /responsibilities

5. Rebellions

This is simply a summarized version, for more details check the larger post.

personally i like idead 1 4 and 5 alot and 3 if ifi but im leaning twords that idea as well nice ideas.

Actually I like all of them. For alliance wide battles, maybe there could be a way for the alliance leader to assign different members general ranks, or maybe alliance members could control their own part, as they are a general. 5. Might just lead to more rebellions though lol. On the alliance trading one that has been shot down many times, maybe there could be a rule that an item could be traded ONCE total?

[Taylor5555]

I could understand that, it's just that the alliance members take advantage of the server market by posting items for minimum so I don't see why we shouldn't just make it easier. The prices would fluctuate with the market, the overall prices would not be determined by the alliance market but by the server market so there would still be a use for it.

Anyway, would you guys like me to go ahead and expand on the previous ideas? I was planning on waiting but I also didn't think the first few posts would all be supportive.

[Taylor5555]

Forgot this in the last post, the reason the leader would be full command is that it seems like some of the members might not be able to be online, or the designers might have a hard time designing the way that ALL members command at the same time. I know where you are coming from, but it would also make it harder to make it completely alliance wide if each member only commands their own troops. Go ahead and explain if you think I understood wrong.

Forgot this in the last post, the reason the leader would be full command is that it seems like some of the members might not be able to be online, or the designers might have a hard time designing the way that ALL members command at the same time. I know where you are coming from, but it would also make it harder to make it completely alliance wide if each member only commands their own troops. Go ahead and explain if you think I understood wrong.

Nope. You understood right. I understand both posts. You just forgot about maybe naming generals?

[Taylor5555]

Yeah, in my opinion however, it seems like that would go with my suggestion for more ranks. Just goad I understood what you were saying lol.

1: This is a good idea, except what would a scouting report show? What stats and upgrades would the troops stationed there receive? This would also mean that you could lose pres by either having an inattentive alliance buddy or a bad commander if they are commanding your troops. My Vote - No
2: This has been suggested many times before and I am all for it. As long as the prices in the alliance market reflect those in the main market, I see no reason why there shouldn't be an alliance only market.
3: I like the idea of alliance wide battles with the Alliance Leader, or Vice Leader, leading the fight. I say Vice Leaders too because there should be an option to declare an Alliance battle, with a note sent out to each alliance member asking for help and the members can then send their troops to join the fight. Having a single battle commander is the only way to work the fight unless they can systematically pair up Person vs person and make it like a "tournament" where the battle winner moves on the to next round...the Match-Ups would be based on Army Size attempting to match up army sizes so that they are close in size. The alliance that wins the "tournament" would receive bonus pres based on the over all pres won and lost by all members participating.
4: I'm not sure how more ranks really helps things. While I understand that people want to feel special, really is a rank going to help you in that? Vice's already have the same abilities and the leader, so I'm not really sure why having more ranks helps anything other then make those ranks a liability to the Alliance leader. More Ranks = More Chance of a Spy having responsibilities within an alliance.
5: Completely support this idea. Having an option to revolt against an alliance leader would be a good option.

[Taylor5555]

[quote="Kcmathews"]1: This is a good idea, except what would a scouting report show? What stats and upgrades would the troops stationed there receive? This would also mean that you could lose pres by either having an inattentive alliance buddy or a bad commander if they are commanding your troops. My Vote - No

Just wanted to clarify the questions that seemed to pop up in this post; the stats and upgrades recieved would be the person who is garrisoning their troops there as they are their troops and that wouldn't change. Second, the scout report would show the normal scout, but then somewhere, most likely underneath the regular troop count, it would show slots for garrisoned troops, if the scout level of the person scouting is higher than the person with garrisoned troops there, then you can see what's there as well. If it isn't, then it' would show: Garrisoned Troops, then just the regular report for if they don't have the higher tech.

Next one was the part about easy way to lose prestige from inattentive alliance members; in all honesty you run this same risk anyway, only in your own city. That's just the risk you run by allowing someone else to command your troops. Then the part of bad commanders, same thing as before; it's the risk you run anyway, however this I could see being a problem also but would be partially resolved by having less prestige lost by the person with garrisoned troops, and more by the person commanding the others troops.

Like I said before, this isn't a "Final Copy", it's only a begininning. If you have questions feel free to ask, but don't forget that this isn't set in stone or anything, it's definitely subject to change.