IMO, your idea would just take us in a circle since it makes no sense itself that we attack with eight units. I would like to think of it as us to attack with squads... (if your idea was to change the singular name into squads, that would be something I would agree it)
Yeah, but the defender also has 8 units
Let's make an example:
We start with the current system, so lets say that we have 100 units (which is many with the current system). If the defender has boosts to both attack and defense, then the attacker will obvuisly lose more units. So, for instance, instead of losing 2 or 3 units, the attacker might lose 6-7 units. This means, that if we have 100 units, we will be able to do 10-12 fights before we run out of units.
However,
what will happen if each military building holds squads instead? This means that in the "Training Window", we train 1 squad instead of 1 unit, or 1 battlegroup instead of 1 tank (or car) or even 1 battery instead of 1 RFC. So, if Squad 3 has 6 out of 10 units alive, we can "Retrain" the squad, which will fill the squad to 10 units. This means that a military building will hold up to 50 units. This also mean that our armies will consist of about 1000 units. So if we still lose about 6-7 units per battle, we will be able to do 100-120 fights, and as we already know, a neighborhood holds 80-90 players as most. Even IF we would lose 8 units in every battle, we would still be able to go through the entire neighbohood
lol, wouldn't it be equal if both attack and defensive GBs give attack and defensive bonuses?
Yeah, but it wouldn't be equal due to "charity"-reasons but to realism.
From a logical and realistic point of view, the offensive great buildings doesn't give any "magical" boosts, but instead increased moral, strenght and battle techniques, maybe even more luck - that is how our GBs makes units stronger in battle. So, if Zeus increases the moral, strenght, will to fight etc, and thereby makes our units stronger, both in attack and defense, how come that our units doesn't get stronger in attack when they have a huge castle supporting them?
Yes, I mean Deal Castle. It has loads of cannons in a 360 degree direction around the whole castle. This castle is obviusly built in our city (yes, we built it there), so wouldn't this castle help us to defend our city in an attack? And if it does, shouldn't all those cannons give us increased fire power - resulting in a boost to our attack?
Yes, this will kill most of PvP unless they up the points per battles, or add bonus points for breaching defensively boosted troops because many players would just change all their military into residential and production buildings and use their RAH, Lighthouse, and St. Marks to gain more points than what they could do with PvP
A very simple solution would be to actually award the attacker with points depending on damage done, even if the attacker retreats
If the attacker successfully manages to breach the defense, the points could be multiplied with a bonus constant, for instance 1.5 or even 2. Also, there could be increased plundering options if it's harder to breach the defense, for instance the attack could plunder a building that hasn't finished yet, and take the production that has been produced so far
To be honest, I've actually started to like the suggestion of removing all boosts to units. The military buildings could offer other bonuses instead. For instance, they could allow more units in battle, faster training time, faster healing time, better plundering etc.
Just as an example, the Statue of Zeus could be like this:
| Level | Additional Units in Battle | Reduction in Training Time |
| 1 | 1 | -5% |
| 2 | 1 | -10% |
| 3 | 2 | -15% |
| 4 | 2 | -20% |
| 5 | 3 | -25% |
| 6 | 3 | -30% |
| 7 | 4 | -35% |
| 8 | 4 | -40% |
| 9 | 5 | -45% |
| 10 | 5 | -50% |
