A new idea for Vanguard

Seeing that Flare already has a brilliant festival system based on crowns, I think they should implement it for War Seasons as well.

2 or 3 Vanguards per alliance, during war, a certain number of crowns must be obtained against opponent players who are appointed as Vanguards first, before other players in the opponent alliance can be attacked.

I can’t stress this enough, but there’s just not enough importance given to the “tower defense” aspect of this game. This will certainly put a little more balance and importance to upgrading your defense.

Not feasible. I bring a top player, make him vanguard, how can a low lvl player even survive?

That’s what I also think, just bring in a few very high players with extreme defenses.

A lot of players will waste raids against them to score enough crowns or even need to scroll to make raids possible for other members. And even if you have players that are able to beat that vanguard, until the moment they become online and defeat him/her hours could already been passed/wasted. We are not married to the game and I am not going to stand up in the middle of the night to check if I can already do my war raids or not.

Nope, give more points for a vanguard, fine, but not block all players till that vanguard is beaten (or x crowns are scored against him/her). war season should be fun for players and I see no fun in preventing players to raid, I would define that as frustrating. Please not add frustrating aspects to the game.

It’s about team work.

They need to make their top players beat your top players to open up other attacks. 

Maybe structure it so certain Vanguards can protect weaker players.


This was my idea: Guardians, monsters that you could place along your path, and they stayed there until they were killed.


You anyways have shields, what is the point of vanguard. If there is one 5000+ player, do 4000+ have to beat them to progress ahead. This idea has many flaws.


The current war system requires no teamwork at all. Just cumulative skull count. If let’s say a really low level Alliance has 20 members, and there’s one Vanguard to defeat. Even if you place 15 crowns like the festival chest system, all it takes is just 15 out of 20 members to get 1 crown each. That’s 1 battle EACH assuming that no one can even beat the Vanguard with 3 crowns.


Right now, there is already a skull limit of 1015. What incentive does a player has to increase his defense when he is the top player in his team? Practically nothing. The opponent can just choose to skip him altogether, and raid the next player which may give 1015 skulls too. The difference in COF may just be 2-10 skulls. The top player may not even get attacked at all because of that.


This will reflect the spirit of a war. Ideally, the top players/ generals should attack first to bring down the Vanguards. Alternatively, you can have many lower ranking players/ soldiers defeating the Vanguards in numbers.


If the top players are inactive and the lower ranking players do not want to sacrifice their “battles” to bring down the Vanguards, then there’s just no teamwork. The team deserves to get “blocked” by the Vanguards then.


Right now it just feels like a single player game, with no necessity to communicate with your teammates. At the end of the day, just compare the skull counts and kick low scorer. Nothing more. This is supposed to be a multiplayer game. There should be more necessity to work together in order to win.



If you are 4000+, chances are, the battles you fight for the festival chests belong to players at 5000+. It’s tested already. It can be done.

If an alliance has a 5000+ player, against a team that only consists of 1500+, rightfully, the battle should be favourable to the team that has the 5000+ player.

Conversely, it would be really silly that the team with one 5000+ player, can do nothing to change the outcome of the war. All the opponents need to do is just avoid him.

With all respect,

A lot of players do have a private life and can’t play 24/7. To remind you, a war lasts 23 hours and 30 minutes. There was a period that Flare changed war season to 4 days, with war times much less than the 23:30. A lot of players came into trouble and weren’t able to participate in every war. So after a few seasons it already proved changing war times was a mistake and had to be turned back.

RR2 players are from all over the world. Those players should be able to play when it fits in their daily schedule. Now you actually try to introduce a burden that prevents most players from raiding inside their comfort zone. I think not a lot of players are happy with the idea that now they could be forced to fight outside their comfort zone. I don’t say our idea is bad, only it has a very deep impact that doesn’t fit in a lot of players their schedule where they can afford to play. A lot of players will even less participate and definitely quit.

Another side effect is that with this suggestion you actually force the strongest players of a team to come online as soon as a war is declared, you can’t risk that other members aren’t able to beat the vanguard, since you would lose for sure. Now imagine that I am one of the players who can beat a possible vanguard. Do you really think that I can play a game at moments wars could be possibly declared? A war can be declared 24/7 to remind you.  Actually I am not married to the game and I am not the only one who will see this as a heavy burden.

You want war participation? Introduce other rules that work on individuals:

  • War boosts should be rewarded only to players that participated enough during war seasons. The definition of ‘enough’ I leave in hands of flare. 
  • When you leave your team and join another team, say goodbye to war boosts. Only inside the team where you won those boosts you have them.
    • When you want war boosts, you have to earn them.
    • We even see players going inactive just before season and afterwards they come alive to profit from those boosts. That won’t work any longer.
    • And yes, it’s also a risk for the team to accept a player who doesn’t have war boosts, while the rest has them I realize that. He/she could be an easy target.
  • Give better gold rewards for war raids. At the moment we often see a lousy 14k- as gold rewards. That’s no reward, that’s an insult.
    • After doing my raids to help the team, I can’t even do my daily donation. That says it all.
    • Players get more gold by raiding outside the season. They raid players who help their team.
    • I would prevent players raiding outside war season, I would prohibit raiding outside wars as long as you didn’t do some war raids (3/10 plus a certain minimum amount of trophies). I know, players will say, we will definitely lose this ongoing war, so why we need to do our raids there? Answer is that it belongs to at least trying to help

The negative impact that a very strong player in the team can determine the outcome of a war doesn’t sound right, war is a team activity and by this it is too much in the advantage of teams with very strong players. The game doesn’t need mercenaries. They will ask high prices to join a team before war season. This is what you definitely will get if you introduce a vanguard. So all by all, we don’t need vanguards


Taking your opinion into consideration, and the fact that there is still a need to give more importance to defense, perhaps Vanguards can be a guardian to additional skull bonus that complements the current system of additional skulls. Every alliance must appoint 2 Vanguards (or it will be selected by default based on highest trophy count), and if they are defeated with 9 crowns cumulatively, they will give 1% skull bonus each, cumulatively until the end of the season. So, since there are 5 battles, if an alliance defeat all opponents’ vanguards, that would be 10% skull bonus at the end of the war season, in addition to the current system.


The entire team will able to get the additional skull bonus, all players still get to fight whenever they want, and it would not be fatal to not defeat the Vanguards (it’s just 10% skull bonus, which will only be important for tight battles).