Mon Sep 29, 2014 5:07 pm
It's there enough ways to get us to bye gold, just increase our castles from 288 to 304. Add 2 to the keep,fortifications,stores and production. Easier we will be happy and you guys still get your gold...
Mon Sep 29, 2014 5:15 pm
Why couldn't you just replace the castles taken with a larger castle on the map. It would make it more interesting to have large fortresses taking up two, three, or even seven fields of map-space. Most people wouldn't mind combining their castles to make fortresses, but having them turned into free castles will discourage many from bothering.
Mon Sep 29, 2014 5:24 pm
Fortress sounds interesting although having alot of alliance castles convert to free castles in an area sounds bad.
I'd like the ability to move my castles onto a free castle space within so many fields.
Also, inactive castles less than 40 points should convert back to free castles. Noone wants to cap a 13 pt. castle, if it is FC at least it can be annexed.
Mon Sep 29, 2014 5:28 pm
Just do it. Rock this cosy club of alliances and big over bearingplayers. The real world has shocks that can't be predicted and accommodated. Alter the game dynamics. The challenge is to respond and survive.
Mon Sep 29, 2014 6:06 pm
I like the idea of this from the offensive side, but not the defensive side. I think the defensive benefits far outweighh the offensive benefits. I like the idea of being able to send say 100k - 125k in silver and 5 castles worth of troops from one location. Strategically that makes it much more simple to not only launch real attacks but also makes it easier to launch fakes.
Defensively you're creating a pretty unlikely target. Right now I'd guess people are sending 20k - 30k in troops for a single cap, plus the silver (at least on my server, US5). To make an ATTEMPT at taking a fortress you'd need 100-150k in troops and commit 5 times the silver to the attempt. Also it's easier to defend, because now you have less castles to protect. If someone has 60 castles, you can coordinate with your alliance to launch attacks on some and fakes on the other, that person has to prepare for attacks on all of them. If you convert them to fortresses that's 12 locations to worry about which is far easier.
My solution would be to keep the five castles, but once they are linked the designated castle becomes a fortress. That fortress has benefits such as faster resource production, an increased keep (maybe 40k which would make your total from those 5 castles 120k for example), an increased population of say 1-2k, and some of the other benefits you mentioned. The key would be that when you attack from that location it pulls silver and troops from all 5 linked castles. Now your fakes or attacks from that location are a pretty big added benefit and a reason to upgrade.
Defensively you've created an asset you want to protect, but not an impossibility to conquer. You'd now have 5 locations you could attack, as taking out any of the 5 would "break" the fortress. In battles, you've created a bit of a problem for the defensive side, and some strategic options for attackers. You could fake the 5 linked castle fortress as an attacker while you attack single castles, knowing the defensive side wants to protect that as a priority above a normal castle, or you could make it a priority to take that out since that is a more important target. From the defensive side it is good to have that fortress, but it would make you have to concentrate your defenses on those 5 castles that are linked, since losing any of them would break the fortress, over single castles that may be further away. You would have to weigh that downside when creating the fortress.
I think the key is not making it even harder to fight actual battles. Right now it's pretty easy to take free or inactive castles, having near impossible targets just makes it less likely for people to fight actual battles. If done correctly fortresses could make it easier to launch attacks, but it can't be done in a way that creates targets that nobody is going to go after.
Other notes, I agree that it should NOT have to be full 288 point castles. There should be minimums in each area to be eligible. I never make 288 pt castles, you lose to much in population and it often times takes to long for it to be worthwhile. I usually stop at 5 on market, 21 on arsenal, 28 on lumberjack/mine/quarry. If you had some minimums levels for each category before the fortress research was available I believe that would be an improvement over what I've seen mentioned so far of having to be at the full 288 pts.
Mon Sep 29, 2014 6:25 pm
Points are irrelevant. All that matters is power which is decided more than anything by the number of troops you can bring to bear.
The game is already entirely too defense biased making it difficult to capture castles without bringing minimum 3-1 numbers. And - incidentally - whoever wrote into the code the ability to reinforce a castle under seize needs shot in the face. Shouldn't you have to defeat the attacking force in the open? Anyway if you're going to add in a feature to make defense even easier shouldn't you consider an offset on the offensive side? How bout we stop worrying about our wallets and try setting this up in a slightly more historical manner.
Mon Sep 29, 2014 7:01 pm
This is incredibly needed. In the early stages of the game strategy is very important. In the later stages strategy becomes insignificant as most people leave the game not because they were defeated, but because it takes too much time to manage 200 plus castles. Similarly if you are attacked at 200 plus castles it doesn't matter if you are the best or worst player, you are going down.
Mon Sep 29, 2014 7:14 pm
Personally I think you need to do this on a new server and leave the old servers alone bc when you have players that put time, enery and some money into playing this game the way it is, an improvement here and there is one thing but causing a drastic change and change the game as we like it, you will lose players. It isn't fair to those of us playing older servers for you guys to come in and turn the game and our wars on its head! This idea is geared more towards those farmer players who cluster build and not warring players so let's turn the game into FarmVille? Do not put this feature on my server please bc I do put money into this game and I will quit and find another game where the devs quit changing things right in the middle of war! Trust me, I played a game where the devs kept doing this crap and now hardly anyone has ever heard of that game bc players wanting an actual war game quit and left to find others and other game developers capitalize on this kind of stuff. You have a great game here so put that kind of stuff on special servers, not those of us that like war! Increase capacity for silver and troops in our current castles but building fortress clusters is dumb IMHO. I play to war and win, not to farm and build fortresses! There are so many more improvements you can do that doesn't create an imbalance or drastically change the game in the middle of war rather than this stuff.
You guys limited our ability to travel and chase enemies on server 6 which was dumb and I no longer play new servers bc of that. Leave our older servers alone and make special servers for this type of game play bc you WILL kill old servers and lose a lot of members with your other competitors out there. I'm begging you guys to stop messing with our actual war servers!
Mon Sep 29, 2014 7:47 pm
NO ! PLEASE DONT DO THIS!!
If you make defense easier it will slow the game up and kill it stone dead. Its slow enough already with the time it takes to buldup enogh silver for an attack and this Fortress idea will just make it harder to take anything off the enemy. If you have to do this (and I hope you wont) - dont do it on any existing servers. The game needs to be made faster not slower.If people want a defensive farming game they can always go to Celtic Tribes Don't mess with Lord anf Knights!!
Mon Sep 29, 2014 8:28 pm
This sounds very interesting. I would like to make the suggestion that you do not take the four castles tied to the fortress and revert them back to FC. The whole point is to build a stronghold. Why not lock them somehow and make the main castle the only active one out of the group of five. Or hide them?
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
phpBB Mobile / SEO by Artodia.