HQ Troops

[[Ninja-7]]

A fairly simple suggestion this. What if you were able to designate up to, say, 30% of you troops as "HQ detail" or something similar. These troops could then be commanded by any person within your alliance with the requisite security level. They would still count towards your score, and would stay at your ID until ordered out (either by you or another alliance member). This would make the activity required within an alliance smaller, as less people have to be online to defend within your alliance. You could still have power over your troops, so if you had already sent an attack with all of them, they couldn't be used, or if you didn't want to lose any of them, you could recall from a defence ordered by another person.

In alliances not in war, they could be used to defend only, whereas during war they could be used to attack the target alliance.

I just see this as being a fairly effective way to reduce the activity requirements of allied play, whilst not over powering them. After all, you'd still lose valuation as on a normal defence.

What does everyone think?

 

[DarkSider]

At first look you want somebody or more to be able to use ONLY 30% of the troops on each member.
What you don't realize it's that it's only the senders that know that, from point of view of attackers if they see all 20 members defending with high enough numbers to have sent all lethals there it would kill all the action all the time. 20 members able to send fake defence 24/7 and apear online it's a nasty thing

 

[Podunk]

This wouldn't work out so well.

-Every time you attack an alliance you would have 20 people defending. So to do anything to another alliance you would have to have to organize a very large scale attack making the game much more tedious than it should be.

-As far as reducing the games need for commitment yes it would work, but I don't think it would benefit gameplay.

-It would make the game completely leader based, as they could control an entire alliance with a click of the button, making regular members unnecessary.

Personally I've always thought of bushtarion as a team game, where everyone has to do their part to succeed.

Something that could work:

-HQ's have units that are bought with alliance funds and are actually worthwhile.

 

[Souls]

-Every time you attack an alliance you would have 20 people defending. So to do anything to another alliance you would have to have to organize a very large scale attack making the game much more tedious than it should be.

Make the troops reported from HQ then.

-It would make the game completely leader based, as they could control an entire alliance with a click of the button, making regular members unnecessary.

This is a daft statement. Without the other members where would the troops he's commanding come from? And what about the other 70% of the troops that the HQ CAN'T command? Are you implying that they're useless as well?

 

[[Ninja-7]]

Okay, the 30% was maybe a tad high, 5% perhaps (1/20th)? Then it would just be like having another member online to defend, or attack with. It at least allows a little flexibility for smaller alliances whose members aren't that active... And I don't think it should just be leader based, I think it should be a permission. I just thought that it allows an alliance communal troops, without the need for said troops to be reinvented, rebalanced etc... (say what you like about current route balance lol). Could make playing in an alliance slightly easier on those with less activity.... Plus, I think as long as it was 5% of each member's troops, which they have to volunteer, It wouldn't make attacking too hard, as it would only be like countering an additional member's defence. I see it as effectively changing it so that as long as one person is online, its like two are, so you can at least defend effectively...

Oh and to counter the apparent real def. scenario darksider pointed out, you could have them as one mob, which it says is sent from (insert alliance hq). As if they were sent to the hq with eta 0, then redirected to wherever theyre needed.

 

[Elevnos]

-Every time you attack an alliance you would have 20 people defending. So to do anything to another alliance you would have to have to organize a very large scale attack making the game much more tedious than it should be.

Yeah, I would agree with that if it were a bigger number say 50%, but it still think 30% is too big aswell.
If you had 5% then there would not be much point whereas you normally get organised attacks against you anyway so 10% - 15% could work, it would not be a huge amount but not too small either, you normally get 2 or 3 attacks at a time anyway.

 

[DarkSider]

Even 1% would be insanely powerful.
It's not about the inactive alliances but decent allies would abuse this to extreme. All SO's/tl/vamps would be able to fake 24/7. All members in top alliance or others with large amount of gards would fake en mass.

"In alliances not in war, they could be used to defend only, whereas during war they could be used to attack the target alliance."

All stealth routes could cycle stealth 24/7 in a war.

 

[Podunk]

-Every time you attack an alliance you would have 20 people defending. So to do anything to another alliance you would have to have to organize a very large scale attack making the game much more tedious than it should be.

Make the troops reported from HQ then.

-It would make the game completely leader based, as they could control an entire alliance with a click of the button, making regular members unnecessary.

This is a daft statement. Without the other members where would the troops he's commanding come from? And what about the other 70% of the troops that the HQ CAN'T command? Are you implying that they're useless as well?

Hardly. I like to play to command my own army. Why would I want someone else to control 30% of my troops just because they are my "Leader".

Its the leaders job to have the troops go to the right places by giving the other members in the ally direction to do so. Not because they have direct control of 19 other peoples troops. Even if its 20% that's like having 4 people on at all times...

A slightly tweaked exception would be, a max of 3% troops to the HQ at the max. Then having those extra troops around for defense and defense only.
Would be like the army reserves or something. Equivalent of 3/5 an extra member with troops home.