Alliance notification needs to be more detailed.

I think alliance notification is too general. For example, when a general sends an invite to another player. The notification only mentions who just joined or reject the invitation but nothing about who sent the invites. This extends to other things like who activated specific boast in alliance, who kicked other members out or who initiated an invasion to which field. 


I think the added detail into who is responsible for which action would allow alliance leaders to ensure accountability of the generals they promoted. Otherwise, any general could sabotage an alliance without being caught or those who have been actively helping in alliance will go unnoticed since no name is mentioned as to who did what.

Blame you leader.


If he cant Trust and control his Generals u you should run, not walk from that Alliance.


Ask questions in chat. If you cant get direct honest ans from the yellows then you are no longer an Alliance of kings, u just there slave.


How the heck can the leader control his generals if there is no means to monitor the actions of elected generals? If there are multiple generals and one went rogue, there is no way to figure out which of the generals is responsible. So how is that the fault of the leader if he/she isn’t given any way to manage the alliance properly? 


Regarding the questions in chat part, it is still up to each general whether they wish to speak. Plus we have people from different regions around the globe as well. Not all speak english. Even if each of them would answer, it still doesn’t help identify who is responsible for which action. 


So instead of leaving any alliance with one bad general. I’m simply suggesting the notifications to be more detailed so leaders of any alliance would manage their alliance better. That would also allow each ‘king’ to remain honest as well rather than be suspicious with one another. That’s why we put up suggestions right? To improve the game.


Either that or we could consider allowing alliance leader to limit what generals can and cannot do. That why the leader can decide what he/she trust the generals to do. Personally i prefer just having more detailed notification.