The new Alliance Wars feature is great, but it’s relatively makeshift, compared to games that specialize in alliance wars. Here I’m going to describe what Alliance Wars should look like of you ever want to overhaul it. Keep in mind, it is very long, so it would help to take out a piece of paper to draw what I’m telling you. For a list of all the benefits of this layout, just skip to the end.
First of all, the strategy of Fiefdoms.
As of right now, it relies far too heavily on who has the most active players, and on how weak your weakest members are. For example, if you put a 3k + a 1k against two 2k’s, the 2ks are going to win. This makes lower-leveled players useless, when they should rightfully be allowed to participate, or to at least be put back and shielded. The point is, rather than it being player vs. player, ability to attack anyone, we need to be allowed to strategically place our members where they’re most useful. That’s why I propose a Flag system. A flag system is where people’s bases are stationed wherever the Leader or Generals put them, and a flag is also placed somewhere (obviously the most strategic place to put it is at the back). Players advance by defeating others’ bases. Once they defeat a player, they (and the rest of their alliance) can then attack adjacent spaces. However, they also have to replace that castle with one of their own, if they want to defend the space. Spaces left empty (whether because a member was kicked, if a member moved their castle into enemy territory, etc) are simply consider fair game, and can be recolonized by either side simply by paying the food price. So for example, it costs me 165 food per battle. So if I come across an empty space, all I have to do is pay 165 food, and it belongs to my alliance…
Anyway, back to the main point. The way you win in Flag Mode, is by having both flags on your side of the field by the time that time runs out. If you each have 1 flag on your side of the field, then the tie is broken by Skull Count.
Also a few other rules associated with Flag Mode: 1) Once a king holds the flag, he cannot pass it off to other kings. He himself must transport it towards the heart of his own territory. And 2) Since a king attacks from his castle, the king cannot attack across enemy lines. That means that, if your alliance happens to hold a space in my territory, surrounded by my alliance (if we cut you off), you cannot attack from that space unless your castle is within that space. Also, 3) a king who holds the flag, cannot transport his castle along allied territory. He has to actually fight his way out, without any real assistance from his alliance. And 4) these rules apply to the alliance that owns the flag, too. Blue Team cannot recapture Blue Flag, and then transport it back to the heart of the territory, no. One Blue Team member cannot pass the Blue flag onto another Blue Team member, nor can he freely transport his castle when he has the flag. This means that, when an enemy alliance captures your flag and advances with it, those advances are likely to stick. There’s not going to be any bull rap like the enemy getting the flag right to their border, then you teleporting it back to your heart, no.
Second of all, battles.
As stated before, weaker members are practically useless under the current system. Also, battles need to be more collaborative, rather than the typical 1v1. That’s why I propose a battle system wherein however much a defender loses, is how much they’re weakened against the next attacker. So for example, if you place a trap tower at the end of your path, and I only get 98%, you’re going to be weakened by 98% against the next person who attacks you. This makes it so that you don’t necessarily have to get 3 crowns to win a territory (otherwise alliances would use their strongest members as shields, and there’d be no way to win ground) and also gives weaker members a purpose. For example, let’s say that you have a 3k and a 1k vs. a 4k. Under the current system, neither the 3k player nor the 1k player would be able to gain any ground. However, under the system I’m proposing, Blue 3k could weaken Red 4k by 75%, then send Blue 1k in for the kill. Now, how you want to weaken people is entirely up to you. Whether you want to take off X% HP, take off X% Atk, or take off (X^0.5)% from both HP and Atk, I don’t care. They all look like they’d work just as well. Or you could even give the attacker a boost of [1/(100%-X%)]. This way, weaker members could participate by “softening up” stronger enemies; it would be more collaborative, because alliance members would actually be cooperating rather than just stacking points; and it would also prevent people from using unbeatable members as shields for the flag. Because if you do things this way, no one is unbeatable.
The 2nd order of business in battles, is the Food. Whereas players are only expected to participate in 3 battles/front now, they may have to participate in 30 to 60 battles per front over the course of a day in this system. So the food requirements, when attacking people under the Alliance War system, should be about 1/10th or 1/20th the food requirements normally. For example, it currently costs me 165 food per battle. When attacking under the Alliance Wars system, it should only cost me 17 food.
However, to keep people from sitting back at the back of their territory and “sniping” the enemy, there be a cost associated with traveling. The way it should be is that traveling costs 1/10th the normal food requirement, but battles are free. Ergo, if I attack the space next to me, that’s 17 food for the travel, and the battle doesn’t cost anything. Likewise, if I want to move my castle 1 space over within my own territory, that still costs me 17 food. But what if I want to go two spaces? If there’s an allied space between me and my opponent, and I have to travel 2 spaces, then that costs me 33 food, and we then engage in battle. Likewise, if I want to move my castle to an empty space two spaces over, that also costs me 33 food. Doing anything from 3 spaces away would cost me 50 food; doing anything from 4 spaces away would cost me 66 food, etc. This is simply to make it hard for people to both defend strategic positions and to gain ground at the same time. It’s better to, if you’re trying to gain ground, to keep your castle at the frontline. This creates a balance between “We need to be able to attack a lot” and “We don’t want to leave our territory vulnerable.” Oh! And it also makes it so that leaders have to place their members’ castles strategically starting out. You should put your most active attackers up front for the low food cost, and put your least active players in the back to act as meat shields. Since there are only so many spaces.
Thirdly, is keeping these changes from affecting the rest of the game too much.
All this really means is, we don’t want to pay people a boatload of gold each battle, if they’re able to battle 10x as often. I’d suggest a measly 50k per battle, against opponents of equal stature. 50k x10 = 500k, so 10 Alliance Wars battles would add up to 1 really great normal battle. This encourages people to participate in Alliance Wars because of the higher gold to food ratio, but doesn’t give them so much as to give them an unfair advantage over other players who, say, may not have as much time for Alliance Wars. Also with trophies. With 1k players dealing the final blows to 4k players, I can’t imagine any sort of algorithm that would actually distribute trophies fairly. Nor should any player have to fear attacking someone much stronger than themselves. So trophies should be unaffected as well.
So what are the overall benefits of these changes?
It makes players battle more often. With the ability to battle so often, they will play a lot more, which means a lot more opportunity for impulse buyers to spend money on stuff.
Makes the game more strategic. Rather than the simple “Let’s see how many of our players bother to attack 3 times,” it’s about how active you are overall, how strong you are overall, how coordinated you are, and where you place yourselves on the map.
Makes battles more collaborative. 2 weaker players can take down a stronger player by working together, makes it so that no one player is ever unbeatable. Not only that, but in allowing weaker members to deal the finishing blows, alliances are able to dramatically help their weaker members advance themselves by allowing them to harvest the spoils from stronger players. Now it’s no longer just about elite boosts, but about kinship.
It’ll play in better with the theme of the game.
Overall, I feel that RR2 really mastered the 1v1 battle system by creating a new and unique gameplay, but that the Alliance system in general has always been lacking in… purpose… RR2 has definitely found a niche, and I now feel that if Flare can make the Alliance system more strategic, more collaborative, more balanced, and more fun, that RR2 will be a game to rival Clash of Clans.