officer / commander relationship...

[Dubby_CompGamerGeek2]

many of the most talented players avoid having officers because
they don't see the material benefits as justifying the time, effort, and expense...

or even the income lost...

as games are designed to have selfish ends,

perhaps the benefits should be greater?

[Juliette]

many of the most talented players avoid having officers because
they don't see the material benefits as justifying the time, effort, and expense...

or even the income lost...

as games are designed to have selfish ends,

perhaps the benefits should be greater?

Or perhaps people should just have small mentor groups, not necessarily represented by an ingame relation. Keep the commander-officer relation for the income and direct protection, but leave the mentoring and advice-giving to exist outside the game's context, for example in the form of 'proteges', whom you would teach the finer arts without them being your official officer/commander.

[Tekki]

I'm not entirely certain about the math of the situation because I don't have officers... or CO.

But most CO's can't give me the income boost that having no CO can and officers, unless I get multiple ones, are not cost effective for the naq loss to UP gained. If I had 5-7 I think it may be being cost effective BUT the Officer is most likely losing naq. I've never really found enough people with good enough UPs who want to lose naq for the dubious pleasure of being my officer.

It is however more cost effective if you have a smaller army size/income. Then officers and a CO can be a boost. It's all size based and perhaps it's meant to be that way. You have the boost and the protection when you are smaller ingame but as you grow, you are meant to stand on your own.