GBG: Place three building slots in each beach HQ tile.
I have not found this exact suggestion after more than an hour of searches and reading.
To provide a counter to the “checkerboard” maneuver executed by stronger guilds, effectively locking out smaller guilds in GBG for the duration of the season. And, ultimately, to bring back more competitive gameplay to GBG where this maneuver dominates.
Weaker guilds get pinned on their beach HQ tile when the checkerboard rotation is being run by the top 2 or 3 guilds for the season. Additionally, those guilds running the rotations normally have siege camps in adjacent provinces that keep their attrition very low or at zero. Thus, the pinned-down guilds have to expend high levels of their players' attrition counter-attacking and may only get one or two chances a day to breakout.
I have read scores of complaints about this from other players here on the forum and in PMs I get from other guilds’ GBG leaders during a season. I have also surveyed this proposal with four Diamond League guilds’ GBG leaders who endorsed it.
Standard military tactics call for reinforcing a beachhead, so it would make sense that an invasion force would fortify their landing zone.
Placing three building slots in each beach HQ tile would give a counter-attacking guild a more level playing field - a chance to capture their “front porch” tile.
Each guild would have the three slots in their beach HQ, so this is not a handicapping feature meaning every guild would have the same capability.
Further, the beach HQ tile would still not yield victory points.
Since the beach HQ doesn't yield points and can’t be captured, these building slots would only be of benefit if siege camps or watchtowers are constructed. (The other options could be greyed-out in the beach HQ tile only.)
This would also permit each guild to secure their two adjacent beach tiles – those adjacent to the HQ in ring.4 – with the decreased chance of attrition.
Using D-Day as an example, since multiple beaches were assaulted, the reality of this, given the concentration of assets on the beach, would lend credence to this proposal.
Without knowing the additional code required to implement this, it would seem to be not a daunting task. However, if siege camps or watchtowers are built in the HQ tile, which is not subject to capture, the structures would remain once built, unlike other such structures in tiles that are subject to capture. That may be objectionable to some.
One address to that potential objection could be that these buildings (siege camps and watchtowers in the HQ tile only) are programmed to disappear four hours after the third of the three tiles adjacent to the beach HQ have been taken by what I term the “HQ Guild” (the one with the home turf).
That disappearance would be concurrent with the end of the lockdown period in the last of those three tiles captured (and being held with the other two HQ Guild adjacent tiles). In other words, the expiration of the four-hour countdown clock in the last of the three tiles captured would also signal the expiration of the HQ buildings for that HQ Guild.
The structures could then be reconstructed in the HQ Guild’s HQ tile yet again once one or more of the three adjacent-to-HQ Guild’s tiles were taken by a different guild and then all recaptured by HQ Guild.
This feature would not allow the HQ guild to become passive or complacent but encourage the HQ guild to take the initiative.
As far as gameplay, it would appear to bring back some balance without a radical change to GBG.
Abuses or exploits stemming from this proposal don’t jump out, although something may have been missed, which I would presume will be pointed out if recognized.
Add three building slots to the beach HQ to permit the construction of siege camps and watchtowers only. The HQ tile will still generate no victory points and will still be immune from capture.
The only purpose of this proposal is to increase the action level in a GBG season when compared to the excessive boredom 10 days of a checkerboard maneuver gives to many of the contestants.