I feel we could use an additional rank within the alliance structure. I get that many alliances promote everyone to officer for the ability to move war defenses but it would be helpful to have another rank above officer and below XO for the sake of being an actual officer. It’s an important role in an alliance (as is XO) and it shouldn’t be merely used for function but rather something that members have to earn.
8 Likes
Yes. Yes yes yes yes. Yes. I absolutely agree. A rank above Officer and below XO would be perfect for keeping a command structure in your alliance. 
2 Likes
I agree good idea I would love to see that added
Or just let members remove defenses.
1 Like
Yup i would like to have more of those, especially for war
1 Like
How about “War Lord”? Would help in AW so opponents know who to contact for truces, etc. when the Commander or XO aren’t responding or aren’t around.
2 Likes
Good idea
It’s a good idea to have something useful that separates otficers from members that doesn’t involve making them part of leadership in order to function just for wars.
To do this:
- A new label - “Warrior” - ( for example only for wars ) should be affixed- designated below officer level to regular members. Such as a simple big W
This should remain even if war ends another one starts soon and new players join.
This lets the new players know who’s who from top to bottom.
But why do that if everyone can just make adjustments on the fly?
Because not everyone knows what they’re doing or what they should change- especially newer players and with war starting + options and quick wrong thinking well mistakes happen and realized only afterwards.
We don’t want to revisit another growing pain in the middle of a new war from a new million power player you assume wouldn’t or couldn’t do this kinda thing at that level. Stakes are higher now and who needs to find an avoidable mistake that happened already and allies are calling you to fix it no matter what your level is.
Also- Alliance Members don’t have to have this label to do wars only players with this label can make changes in any war like for defense changes as needed as they happen.
-
Therefore anyone with “Warrior” status that has this capability should be assigned from leadership. If they promote everyone in the alliance to “Warrior” great they do - nothing changes - but for alliances who need better control with key players working with newer players beyond an officer position - this is good.
Beyond an officer position ? What do you mean, new players joining? Why is this good? -
Anyone not an alliance officer but affixed with a W doesn’t need to have an officer present to make war changes and anyone who is not an officer and is not affixed with a W can’t try to make changes they don’t fully understand, make other errors or mistakes.
-
It frees up officer chat to coordinate alliance changes - personnel- war roster changes - events and other leadership related things.
So Anyone not in leadership does not need access to the complete alliance involved details with every tiny entry or change or big changes that need to happen such as personnel- player removal or vacation talks - at least not until it’s the right time to announce these discussed changes to the whole alliance. This is for the leadership roles to decide and to handle.
Anything else - other players or newly joined players with officer access makes this communication inherently awkward.
After all what was the intent for an officer chat…
This also keeps leadership in the game to iron things out without having to exit the app to a private domain to communicate and miss direct game messages, or stay in-game and have some one pop up in officers chat and say is this about me - why… yes it is about you. You’re Fired!
Officers and Warriors can both make war changes but should have 2 identities 2 separate roles 1 for leadership game responsibilities and 1 for a regular member without leadership alliance wide permissions and officer chat access. There’s no need.
So if we’re going to have something to this effect, it can be done successfully right. I’m sure there’s other solutions to keep this a simple war enhancement.
Again, It’s a good idea to have something useful that separates otficers from members that doesn’t involve making them part of leadership in order to function just for wars.
2 Likes
Yes, this topic was previously opened before! 6 updates I think, but nothing new
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.