• Dear forum reader,
    To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account, you need a forum account. You can     REGISTER HERE!
    Please ensure a translation into English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.
  • We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Support or Forum Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitment page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply
  • Forum Contests

    Won't you join us for out latest contest?
    You can check out the newest one here.

Inconsistent bonuses for defence

bilboman

Corporal
How come units on the world map get defence bonuses for both attack and defence but GBs & watchfires only give bonuses for defence for defending units? The application of bonuses to defending units should be more consistent within the game. I think that it would be better if defending units got bonuses for both attack and defence in all cases.
 

DeletedUser96780

no it wouldn't, the defender doesn't lose any units during the battle, the attacker does. That's their bonus.
 
Surge

Surge

Brigadier-General
Yes, but considering that a 3-set GB bonus of 150% up and down bonus is equivalent to a 525% defense bonus, and the most you can get conventionally is 200% (watchfires cannot be built outside of special events). So, there's that.
 

bilboman

Corporal
Surge said:
Yes, but considering that a 3-set GB bonus of 150% up and down bonus is equivalent to a 525% defense bonus, and the most you can get conventionally is 200% (watchfires cannot be built outside of special events). So, there's that.
Click to expand...

Well the good news is that it seems to have been recognized as a problem and action taken. The bad news is that the bonuses weren't adjusted for the world map as well. It doesn't affect me at the moment because I am done with the world map but it makes it more difficult for those who aren't. Unfortunately, there should have been more discussion during the planning phase for this change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top