Special name for alliance leaders and second in command

[Twitchy]

well if you set up an alliance then you should be able to protect your alliance mates, second in command have been give the same responsibility, why hide? i mean surley its a privilege to be chosen as second in command, and if people know who is in charge in the allaicne they will know who to contact if the leader is away. am i making any sence lol?

[Lore]

well if you set up an alliance then you should be able to protect your alliance mates, second in command have been give the same responsibility, why hide? i mean surley its a privilege to be chosen as second in command, and if people know who is in charge in the allaicne they will know who to contact if the leader is away. am i making any sence lol?

yes, your line of thinking is fine, but your not following mine. I was once in an alliance where the "leader" and "2IC" both were all mouth. Had no control over anything. It times of war they were targeted and destroyed repeatedly. We used them to sniff out the attackers while the true "core" of the alliance was left unscathed.

Smaller, smarter alliances have used this tactic with success.

[Twitchy]

ahh i c magic wow have u ever tried lazer wuest whiles drunk haha its magic

[Juliette]

[yes, your line of thinking is fine, but your not following mine. I was once in an alliance where the "leader" and "2IC" both were all mouth. Had no control over anything. It times of war they were targeted and destroyed repeatedly. We used them to sniff out the attackers while the true "core" of the alliance was left unscathed.

Smaller, smarter alliances have used this tactic with success.

Sound strategy, indeed.

I'm against the update.. see no need for it, and more extra titles only clutter the screen. It's crowded enough as it is.