AW BG Captains

NøxNøx Member Posts: 77 ★
in Suggestions and Requests
You guys should add something along the lines of AW captains that can move the board. This way you don’t have to expand your alliance’s Officers beyond who you’d really like, giving many the control they have, but so it’s not limited to the few officers to do all the placement like it is in mine. My BG has 1 officer but I imagine some have none and the officers are in other BGs. They’d have just the power to move the board, nothing else. Not the other abilities Officers have. Just a thought.

Comments

  • NøxNøx Member Posts: 77 ★
    Interesting. It’s such an innocuous suggestion I would have thought people would have thought it was fine or not cared enough to even disagree. It’d be such a minor adjustment. Oh well, either way I guess it’s not going to be well received. Scratch it then.
  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
  • SiriusBreakSiriusBreak Member, Guardian Posts: 2,156 Guardian
    Ya_Boi_28 said:

    It could get to people's head and ruin wars.

    This right here. If you can't rely on, or simply don't trust X member of your Alliance with the abilities that come with being an Officer, why give them the ability to tinker with the AW Defense Grid? If I promote someone to Officer it's because I have faith they won't do anything to sabotage the group in any manner of speaking. I do understand how the idea on the surface sounds decent, but if you can't trust them to be an Officer, then you probably shouldn't trust them with the AW D layout.
  • NøxNøx Member Posts: 77 ★
    I guess this stems personally from me wanting and being willing to help with AW but not wanting to be a part of the rest of the drama that can come from being an officer. So I know the board well and wouldn’t mind being a “Captain,” but don’t want the other stuff that comes with being an officer.

    I don’t see it as much as an issue of trust as division of labor, burden of responsibility and importance of clear chain of command. It would just add a level to the already hierarchical structure. I just stressed the abilities officers have to help clarify roles. The Air Force, or any armed forces, may have full faith in the competence of a Major but don’t want them to have the same responsibilities as their Colonels or Colonels the same as Generals. Essential the same thing. It just adds a designation to make it more specialized like more complex hierarchical structures and as AW and AQ have made the nature of an alliance. You probably should be able to trust most members in your alliance as officers but don’t want or need them all to be. It could help streamline things a little.

    It’s really not that big a deal either way. If we had “Captains.” You wouldn’t have to even use them, you could go on just the same but if you wanted you could keep officers responsible limited to to recruitment, managing members making their minimums, overseeing the Captains, etc...and the Captains left oversee the BG with the Leader overseeing them all. Maybe it’s just a military background thing🤷‍♂️

    If that kinda of thing could ‘get in someone’s head to ruin wars’ they definitely should not be made an officer in my opinion.
Sign In or Register to comment.