Alliance Titles and Authorizations!

[DeletedUser]

What would be nice is an update that would improve the Titles and authority section for alliances.

SUGGESTED NEW/UPDATED POSTS​

Founder:

• Can assign important posts
• Change alliance name
• can disband alliance
• all other regular authorizations NOT assigned to Special posts

Interior Secretary:

• Responsible for accepting alliance applications (this would mean that we would need to make it possible for players to send an application to join an alliance verses the current system)
• Can see resources of all alliance members (this will come in handy when it is time to build world wonders and if you don't understand how then read up on the world wonder building check list)
• Can create and assign ranks within the alliance (same as current system)
• Can edit the Internal Alliance Forums

Diplomat:

• Can edit External Alliance Page (The Page that all non members see)
• Can manage Alliance Pacts
• Recieves all letters sent to the alliance (Letters that pertain to diplomacy, for this we would need to implement an button specifically for other alliance that want to discuss diplomatic issues)

General:

• Can see all Land and Naval Units of Alliance members
• Can see all attacks and supports on AND from alliance members
• Can call back attacks and supports from alliance members

The above Positions are Posts the Founder would be able to delegate to members of the alliance who he feels he should. The benefits of those posts would only be accessible to the members holding those posts. When a member is given the post under his/her game name would appear there Post Position. Example:

Dark Cry
Founder

Instead of having to write in the rank for the special Posts, it would already appear once given to a member.

 

[DeletedUser]

all this can be done already except the parts where you want to see resources and troops and to 99,9999% you will never see them and i hope that 0,000000001% never happens

 

[DeletedUser]

all this can be done already except the parts where you want to see resources and troops and to 99,9999% you will never see them and i hope that 0,000000001% never happens

you forgot the part about being able to monitor incoming and outgoing attacks on alliance members, this does not already happen. I think it would be a interesting addition to the alliance authorizations.

Plus I never said it was new I said just update it a bit, give it a new fresher look. Kind of looks cheesy right now.

 

[DeletedUser]

....

• Can see all Land and Naval Units of Alliance members
• Can see all attacks and supports on AND from alliance members
• Can call back attacks and supports from alliance members

....

You forgot:

• Can launch attacks and supports from alliance members
• Can disband enemy alliances
• Can control every city from every player from every world

 

[DeletedUser]

your right I did forget

You think they would go for that hahaha
I am assuming you never heard of Ikariam. I have a couple accounts with this game and that is where I got the idea to suggests these things here. It works in that game no complains or cries that the game has become harder to play, they just roll with it and its really cool, the only reason I play Grepolis is because over here you can actually conquer towns not just baby sit.

 

[tagesorin]

General:

• Can see all Land and Naval Units of Alliance members
• Can see all attacks and supports on AND from alliance members
• Can call back attacks and supports from alliance members

This is non-sens. I make a general one super player with lot of time and he ll play for all. give attacks, suports, etc. Why do we need 100 members.

NO NO NO.

 

[DeletedUser]

huh

This is non-sens. I make a general one super player with lot of time and he ll play for all. give attacks, suports, etc. Why do we need 100 members.

NO NO NO.

what are you talking about? I said call back attacks. No player without your password can play for you, why would even I want that to happen, haha. Read it carefully, I said CALL BACK troops, NOT send attacks and support.

 

[DeletedUser]

sure and one pissed off leader for whatever reason suddenly decides to call back all attacks sent by player x. or all support that was going to help player x.

Or he just tells an enemy alliance "player x has y troops in village z."

 

[DeletedUser]

sure and one pissed off leader for whatever reason suddenly decides to call back all attacks sent by player x. or all support that was going to help player x.

Or he just tells an enemy alliance "player x has y troops in village z."

Well if your alliance has picked a pour leader than I guess you would expect that to happen. BUT like I have said this feature is used on another game i PLAY SIMILAR to this one and we do not have any of these problems you guys are crying about. Instead of thinking about all the bad look at some of the good
1. A member of your alliance sends an attack on a pact member.
2. A member is attacking another member without permission.
3. A member does not have an adequate amount of troops (you can encourage him to build more and give him a deadline). Right now you have to waist your own silver to see what a member has.
and there are more benefits but you guys probably just want to hear the con's so i guess you have to get that info from someone who actually knows what those would be....

 

[DeletedUser]

trust could help and when someone attacks an pact or own member, i would contact him warn him to not repeat that, ask him for the reason and than make a deal for retribution, but for that the leader would need social skills and not an menu to control his members

 

[firing]

This idea is horrible. So many people would take advantage of their position it isn't even funny. I mean seriously all the people with a lot of points are going to do is join a small alliance and threaten to leave and attack the members if they don't get a certain position. Then they'll abuse the position. Let's say he's the interior secretary he makes everyone a general the alliance falls apart. If he was the diplomat he could see ALL messages and there might be battle reports. If he was the general he could look at there land and naval numbers enter them into the simulator and know exactly what he needed to attack with. He could withdraw any support going to that alliance member as well. I mean seriously there ARE people like firelord (Please excuse me for the reference to the international server.) who would abuse this idea within the first 2 seconds it was up.

 

[DeletedUser]

This idea is horrible. So many people would take advantage of their position it isn't even funny. I mean seriously all the people with a lot of points are going to do is join a small alliance and threaten to leave and attack the members if they don't get a certain position. Then they'll abuse the position. Let's say he's the interior secretary he makes everyone a general the alliance falls apart. If he was the diplomat he could see ALL messages and there might be battle reports. If he was the general he could look at there land and naval numbers enter them into the simulator and know exactly what he needed to attack with. He could withdraw any support going to that alliance member as well. I mean seriously there ARE people like firelord (Please excuse me for the reference to the international server.) who would abuse this idea within the first 2 seconds it was up.

Haha you guys don't pay attention when you read?!?!
The positions could only be given to one member at a time :/ why in the world would you think an alliance would need more than 1 General??? But anyways like I had this isn't my original idea I took it from another game I play and it works well! Nothing that you guys are worried about happens. I am not saying it can't happen cause it can but if your alliance is a good and loyal alliance than these feature will work! TIP: be apart of an alliance you can trust and nothing your concerns will be an issue

 

[DeletedUser]

trust could help and when someone attacks an pact or own member, i would contact him warn him to not repeat that, ask him for the reason and than make a deal for retribution, but for that the leader would need social skills and not an menu to control his members

The Leader would NOT be able to have the functions of the General and visa versa for the other Alliance titles. The Leader would pick someone he obviously trust with a specific title and that person he chooses will be the only one to see the corresponding rights pertaining to his particular Title. It really does work out well in the game I play which is called IKARIAM.
If someone had the General Title they would be able to see all incoming attacks on all alliance members IN HIS OWN ALLIANCE "(just to make that clear for those who find my thread hard to follow, haha). So if a particular member is being attacked and he is not online (Which I think we should have a feature implemented that would allow all members to see if other members "OF THE SAME ALLIANCE, haha" is online at that particular moment) then the general would be able to see that and either warn the enemy not to attack or send aid or mass message to send aid to the member that is offline. And if a member is attacking someone he should NOT be attacking then the General can call back his troops, this works well for preventing diplomatic issues. Also lets say you have a member of your alliance that is always asking for help because he keep getting attacked by the same player but when you look at your member and see that he or she should be able to defend themselves with as many cities as he or she has you can ask the Leader can ask the General to evaluate the situation by looking at his troop status. If the player is not creating any troops then the alliance can determine whether to just kick the leaching member out of the alliance or give him a deadline to build up his or her troops. I know this seems sketchy to some players but it works well. Implement it and see for yourselves and if there is still a lot of crying and kicking then get rid of it haha.

 

[DeletedUser]

Explained a little further

Okay everyone I updated my original post explaining further what I had tried to get across. All the added information is in RED and BOLD.

 

[DeletedUser]

This is non-sens. I make a general one super player with lot of time and he ll play for all. give attacks, suports, etc. Why do we need 100 members.

NO NO NO.

I never said anything about the general being able to send other players troops to attack haha that would just be stupid