Battle Orders Priorities?
Day 1,992, 06:45
•
Published in Norway 
•
by
•
by Jochen Lutz
Hello, fellows!
I just made a few GIF-s, that could be used for battle orders articles. Of course, they are far from perfect and many would perhaps comment "level of Photoshop - 0", but we could make better ones too! These are actually just a basic sketch, made on Paint, and now I want to hear what you think! Tell me your opinion - should we have organised battle priorities, published every day? And then I would like to know what lacks those GIF-s, tell me what they need in order to get more understandable.
And to the future and still unknown CP - I will be happy to help you, managing the public battle orders publications according to the official priorities. I think every people would appreciate a good style of information, especially when it comes to warfare. So, if you are interested or if you have something else in mind, let me know, dear candidates!
Thank you!
2. Try
3. Try
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Not bad, but the "flashing" needs a epilepsy warning😉
Well, I spotted this flashing problem, but it must be due to the eRepublik stuff. The gif-s are calibrated, but sometimes they all flash as one, and sometimes they flash as if they were on LCD. So I am not sure how to fix it. However, I think this could be made better if it is done more professionally than my pathetic try : D
Why not to implement a star rating priority - from 1 to 5.
Well, I suppose that for a small nation like ours 5 levels of battle importance would be too much. It would be simply hard to set the battle as a specific priority...
A start rating is also a good possibility, but in my opinion 5, in spite of being a nice and traditional number, would be inefficient. Other countries use this scale, but I doubt they understand the difference between all the 5 levels.
5 - If the battle is not won, we lose congress or something of commensurate importance.
4 - If the battle is not won, our national interests at the highest level become jeopardized (Our closest allies losing congress, or something of similar importance)
3 - If the battle is not won, we risk losing a valuable territory or something of commensurate importance
2 - If the battle is not won, our allies will lose a valuable territory or something of commensurate importance
1 - If the battle is not won, it has negative repercussions for our nation (This is to be used mainly when we run out of decent battles to fight and we have to stretch to find a DO)
I just made this up, and it seems like it makes sense. All in favor of implementing my system with the clear attached guidelines?
It sounds reasonable to me, great job! However, since we value our allies as much as our own people, couldn't we mix 5 and 4, and then 3 and 2? We could have High priority for both Norway and Asgard, when it comes to loosing congress or wining a major campaign, a Medium priority, for whole of Asgard as well, when it comes to any sort of direct wars of a member, and Low priority, when it comes to a lack of proper battles or when we have a training war with some one else...
It's just an opinion, so we should ask too - should we divide our battles from those of Asgard when we should prioritise them? In my opinion - no, but it is really a matter of opinion, I doubt there is a right answer.
PS - Since we have 1 or 2 regions in most of the time, losing congress and losing important territory would mean the same for Norway : D
2nd version is better 🙂
I just made a 3-d one? How do you find it - should it be with colours or it gets to childish? Is only black a better option?
Maybe only 1 picture should flash on red?
You mean like the last one?
yes 🙂