• 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.

Lost army (mostly Defense) must be destroyed

DeletedUser110529

I see no reason why an army that have lost a war should be left to keep defending, its not fun. The attacking army is seriously at lost here, we attacked and won, lost some units and they are unrecoverable, they defend and lost all units but they are still there! Very soon no one will be attacking anymore.
 

DeletedUser12400

Hey lightdaaf,

You gain ranking and PvP points, which goes to a certain tournament. These tournaments are held weekly, and there are different levels for different Ages. You are awarded a certain number of medals by attaining certain positions in those tournaments, which concludes at the end of the week. These medals can then be used to purchase territory for your own city.

Don't you think that it would be too cruel if everytime a neighbour attacks you and wins, you were to lose all your defence? In one single combat? What about the next guy who takes a turn at you? Then you would be completely defenceless - easy victory for him. Also, the fact that you cannot control your defending army should be seen as a reason why your defence should not suffer any damage. This feature is in place to protect the players who are just starting out, from the stronger players, who probably started earlier and had more time to develop. Imagine if you just started this game, you have no defenses, and someone just swoops in, attack the two miserable troops that the game puts in by default, and wins? Going by your idea, he takes your entire city, gaining all the benefits that come with it. You, on the other hand, simply restart a new city. And the same thing happens. How long will it be before you get frustrated and not bother trying any more? You would probably think that the developers are awful and that this game favours the strong.

It is extremely unlikely that the developers will ever change the game in the direction you are suggesting.
 

DeletedUser110529


Hey lightdaaf,

You gain ranking and PvP points, which goes to a certain tournament. These tournaments are held weekly, and there are different levels for different Ages. You are awarded a certain number of medals by attaining certain positions in those tournaments, which concludes at the end of the week. These medals can then be used to purchase territory for your own city.

Don't you think that it would be too cruel if everytime a neighbour attacks you and wins, you were to lose all your defence? In one single combat? What about the next guy who takes a turn at you? Then you would be completely defenceless - easy victory for him. Also, the fact that you cannot control your defending army should be seen as a reason why your defence should not suffer any damage. This feature is in place to protect the players who are just starting out, from the stronger players, who probably started earlier and had more time to develop. Imagine if you just started this game, you have no defenses, and someone just swoops in, attack the two miserable troops that the game puts in by default, and wins? Going by your idea, he takes your entire city, gaining all the benefits that come with it. You, on the other hand, simply restart a new city. And the same thing happens. How long will it be before you get frustrated and not bother trying any more? You would probably think that the developers are awful and that this game favours the strong.

It is extremely unlikely that the developers will ever change the game in the direction you are suggesting.
So this is what you are telling me, that destroying a defending unit would have been too cruel. I thought you guys were trying to depict a real war scenario. If you guys are really bent on protecting a newbie who uses a default defense, then give him a week of grace after which he could be attacked and plundered as well. This game would have gone a long way if both rivals lost in this war. I think i'll rather prefer the defending position after all there are many other ways to get medals and points. War is cruel, we still fight it. make it real. New guy, okay no attacking for like 10days, after that you should be able to defend ya self, otherwise it implies you are not serious with the game.
 

Surge

Brigadier-General
So this is what you are telling me, that destroying a defending unit would have been too cruel. I thought you guys were trying to depict a real war scenario.

The game attempts to depict real technological progression through history. The combat is entirely unrealistic no matter how you look at it. Single units, moving turn by turn in hexagon format? And you can only have eight people fight a war? I have a tough time believing people historically deliberately limited themselves like that when it came to war. I mean, even today sometimes the Geneva Convention is violated :lol:

Anyways I agree with OVERTYPE. There are a lot of angle to consider. First and foremost, the defending player needs to be compensated in some way for the poor AI that plays defense for them. Maybe if the player had a hand in defending their city themselves, then they would definitely have to be responsible for their losses, but even then, destruction of units is questionable. You would then have to spend the next 16 hours rebuilding units to put into your defense if you lost your entire eight-man army on the defensive. When are you going to fight on the continent map?

On top of the fact that I need to build a ton of houses for the population needed to support all my supplies and the really population-intensive goods buildings, and then even more military buildings that eat up population like a five-year old in a confection factory, I REEAAAALLLLYYYY don't want to worry about building yet another two military buildings and lose basically all my population and likely tear down a goods building or two to have enough to have a defensive army and an attacking army. And even if I do have the population for it, so what? Again, the AI is pretty bad on the defensive and the attacker inherently benefits from picking the units they want to use before attacking in order to counter your army.

The game purposefully focuses a lot more on attacking and not defending. You have all the control you need to beat an opposing army with minimal losses and it might just make you feel like superman if you wipe out the neighborhood army with all that you have. Besides, tournament economy would shatter if all the armies permanently died because nobody wants to constantly replace their defending units after an invasion they're slated to lose.

Edit:
Very soon no one will be attacking anymore.

Also absolutely false because this system has been in place for five years now and we're still seeing about the same thing as we saw back then, just with GBs and infinite unattached units lol
 

DeletedUser109385

Absolutely -1, the attacker will have an easy time plundering your city if you have to replace you defending army EVERYTIME they get destroyed. Just -1
 

DeletedUser106696

-1

Many players play PvP mainly for medals. I'd hate it if another hoodie who gets up an hour before me would wipe out any chance for me to get PvP points ...
 

DeletedUser110195

Absolutely -1, the attacker will have an easy time plundering your city if you have to replace you defending army EVERYTIME they get destroyed. Just -1
When Soldatos -1's an idea, you know it's dead on arrival.

While I'm here....-1
 

DeletedUser653

-1
New player not been here long and wants to change the fundamentals of the game. so -1 for all the reasons posted above. I even agree with Soldatos :)
 

DeletedUser110615

-1
I doubt anyone would even place a defending army, since the cost of replacing it would be too high.
 
Top