Brigadier

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

Dear users,

please note that we have a new forum now. You'll find it here.

The old forum is set to read-only mode now.

Your Ikariam Team

  • General Information:

    What are you suggesting?
    A new alliance rank, brigadier, given out to perhaps up to three members.
    How will it change the interface/gameplay/battles/system?
    Gives up to three people access to troop numbers and movements. (like a general but without the ability to call back attacks)
    Suggestion Reason:

    Why are you suggesting this? What will it solve/make easier? Think carefully about this one, most suggestions will get heavy critical feedback. Make sure you give a detailed reason and your suggestion solves the issue that you think there is.
    The reason is because it's absurd that you expect one person to overview military actions 24/7. I believe this would make the game more active and more popular due to the increased likelyhood of conflict and increased ability to defend and attack around the clock as an alliance. Also allows alliances to delegate responsibility for battle groups and observing troop numbers

    0029079 0028646
    Heathen
  • Leader has possibility to assign general rank to any other member at any time when necessary.
    Found a bug or think something doesn't work in the game? Don't be afraid and write a ticket or PM me! :)


    "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."
    (c) Albert Einstein
  • Draxo wrote:

    Leader has possibility to assign general rank to any other member at any time when necessary.


    I think it would be unreasonable to expect the leader to be around 24/7 to do that. Plus with varying time zones a leader may go to bed a couple hours before a general etc.
    Heathen
  • Sharpe12 is right, the UK servers work as international servers and there are players almost from every time zone. We cant expect from the alliance leader, that has at least 3-4 player, who is suitable as general and the leader always change the person of general.
    Well, then 4 player can see the troops and movements and only one can call back the attacks, the general. There is a risk, that one of the four player is a spy and always report the movements for the opponent leader or general.
    They see me spammin', they hatin'

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Pacific Ocean ().

  • I voted yes. perhaps even General being 1 star 2 star etc. With multiple people being generals, or at least being able to see attacks might help a bit. The four star general has the ability to call back others troops and see make up of members troops and see attacks on alliance. And maybe lesser abilities to the other generals. maybe they can see attacks on alliance but not see other members troops counts etc. Might be helpful to have the leader, diplomat and home sec also be able to have some general abilities.
  • a player like me who mostly play solo, depends on the offline timing of enemy , and try to sneak in and kill enemy gs, but when there will be 3 players with the ability to check the troop movement than it will be almost impossible to sneak in . it is a good idea but i cant vote yes because it will destroy my gameplay.
  • don wrote:

    a player like me who mostly play solo, depends on the offline timing of enemy , and try to sneak in and kill enemy gs, but when there will be 3 players with the ability to check the troop movement than it will be almost impossible to sneak in . it is a good idea but i cant vote yes because it will destroy my gameplay.



    Maybe we will persuede you into an alliance lol.
    Heathen
  • Some questions.

    1: What is unjque to this rank alone. Currently each rank has its unique features and this doesn't. What vould differentiate it from General Lite? (get the full version for $5 :P).
    2: Dies this lessen ingame work? Currently you could place spearmen in allied towns or talk to each other. Why can't suffice?

    I like the general (no pun intended) concept, but I want it all thought through of why we would need this.


    I don't play any servers anymore, I'm just here for the spam and
    :xeno: :xeno: :xeno:




    badidol wrote:

    Dammit, this thing dies darned slowly.




    badidol wrote:

    Go and check the permissions the Facebook app wants, I dare you
  • A strong YES.

    There is nothing more frustrating than a conflict where the Leader and General are unable to be online.

    This happens because of different time zones. Our Leader and General are UK based, the other Generals are based in Asia and US. It is impossible for the alliance leader to be online 24 hours a day. However if there is at least the capability for another individual to coordinate it would make it easier to engage in battle.
  • As the leader of alliances on both the test server and the NY server in the US I applaud this idea. I manage two alliances with over 120 members. In times of battle I am frequently shifting the GENERAL position around because there may be many different battles widely separated in location. To be able to appoint a "Local" commander for each of those battles is useful. We are able to set up SKYPE chats for each battle to make things more coordinated but being able to have a GENERAL who can see the overall picture in each group would improve things greatly.
  • Well I went with the next rank below general that didn't have general in the title. I was also considering major when I wrote it up. That's a more universal rank across the world, I believe the Americans call a Brigadier, colonel.
    Heathen
  • A good suggestion! and I think that will be better if the General can assign this Brigadier title to active members alternately. Therefore, when Leader is V mode or not login for few days, Brigadier can be assigned to different members by General to keep the alliance alert to the incoming attack.