• 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.

more advanced attackers

DeletedUser11930

Hi i believe that when the bigger kingdoms attack smaller ones ie colonial age attacking High middle age then the attacking army should suffer a deficit or the defending army should fight more tenaciously ie do double damage against the more advanced army
 

DeletedUser15432

This is a very bad idea and would put a lot of the more advanced players off of the game and also would be rejected by the moderators, please refer to the first thread in the ideas section for what is and is not permisable
 

DeletedUser1081

I disagree that it's a bad idea or that it would necessarily put anyone off (except maybe the type who only get off on battering much weaker players). A handicap when attacking weaker players could be complemented by a judicious increase in points for winning such battles, which could make PvP more interesting for a lot of players.
 

DeletedUser

Scipio_Italicus said:
when the bigger kingdoms attack smaller ones ie colonial age attacking High middle age then the attacking army should suffer a deficit or the defending army should fight more tenaciously ie do double damage against the more advanced army
Click to expand...

Why? :eek:

How can the damage and effectiveness of weapons increase just because the defending army gets attacked by a stronger enemy?

-1
 

DeletedUser7719

I'm pretty sure I have seen a similar idea to this, and my answer was: it should be more of a loss in morale for taking over less-developed cities.
 

DeletedUser13805

there is no need to give a defence aid to weak towns etc its only right that stronger armys can walk over weaker troops, thats why we all advance to get better troops, the only problem or moan i have is the castles no one can win anything major now without a castle boost the troops are useless
 

DeletedUser

desypete said:
there is no need to give a defence aid to weak towns etc its only right that stronger armys can walk over weaker troops, thats why we all advance to get better troops, the only problem or moan i have is the castles no one can win anything major now without a castle boost the troops are useless
Click to expand...

This however I agree with you on, but with modification ;)

I don't think that the problem lies in the GBs themselves, but the unbalance between offensive boost and defensive boost. I've tried to explain this is a veeery long thread were it seemed that none either agreed or understood what I meant, so I'm not going to start that duscussion again... but I agree with you that defensive boost when defending is currently worthless.

Defensive GBs should boost attack aswell. But since none agrees with me, I'll just stop writing here, and move on... :)
 

DeletedUser15432

I give this thread a score of -1, I have read all the various threads from various players about the great buildings but short of redesigning the entire attack and defence section of the game, I can not see what they can do
 

DeletedUser13805

Pzkpfwv1d said:
I give this thread a score of -1, I have read all the various threads from various players about the great buildings but short of redesigning the entire attack and defence section of the game, I can not see what they can do
Click to expand...

what they can do is simple
have no defence or attack boosts to troops. battles will be won just by troops power and a persons skill with stratergy. it will give more balence to the infair way people can hide behind a huge defence boost that no one can beat except the ultra strong. it would increase pvp participation in an instant as people would be able to beat each other. as it stands now people dont even bother trying to attack as there not strong enough.
if the devs would be brave enough to put up with the few moans and crys from the ones who want to hang on to the boosts as they dont want everyone to have a fair chance etc
 

DeletedUser11930

I take it all who disagree with me re like the bullies in other neighbourhoods they want to have it easy well the game would be better if the kingdoms were made impossible to be attacked by higher age kingdoms then and the defensive boost from GB's is irrelevant.
In my opinion attackers should get no defensive boost if defenders get no attack boost
 

DeletedUser7719

Scipio_Italicus said:
if the kingdoms were made impossible to be attacked by higher age kingdoms then and the defensive boost from GB's is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
I don't know if people are accidentally saying this, or just not remembering, but the problem here is plundering. I think we should be able to attack all we want, but it's the plundering that would count as "bully" behavior ;)
 

DeletedUser13805

Scipio_Italicus said:
I take it all who disagree with me re like the bullies in other neighbourhoods they want to have it easy well the game would be better if the kingdoms were made impossible to be attacked by higher age kingdoms then and the defensive boost from GB's is irrelevant.
In my opinion attackers should get no defensive boost if defenders get no attack boost
Click to expand...

no there not bullies at all they need battle points to win the towers so they have to attack all in there hoods to gain the points. under your way if i was moved into a hood were everyone was in the ca age then i couldnt attack anyone because i am in the pe age with all the best troops so i wouldnt be able to compete !!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top