Trickling is stupid

[ώơľʄ]

Trickling is the only reason I still play. If it wasn't for that we would al have to join the largest alliance to have any chance for survival. I am guessing the person who started this thread is just sore because their dogpiling tactics didn't work. Long live the underdog.

Absolutely agree😉
What's the point of a strategy game with no active and fluid characteristics?

[Gathon1]

Always found trickling to be dreadfully boring and annoying. People who like them are just weird.

[ͥ͜͠ǫͣ͢ðͫ]

Trickling although time consuming is by far the best course of action when under attack at multiple castles.

A good alliance can cover 90 castles under attack for 6-8 hours with the trickle defence before attacks land. This allows the alliance and player under attack to see what's real and what's fake.

As an attacker you can defeat the trickle with some pre planning. First start with many bridge blockers, and then launch trickle breakers from castles close to your target.

I've seen players take a free castle by their target less that an hour before the attack lands so they can launch a close trickle breaker

Without trickling this game would simply be numbers, the bigger player or alliance would always win

[Agravaine]

unless someone isn't paying attention at all trickle buster hardly ever works. Few holes appear, easily plugged and then it's either hoping for viking opportunity or that they run out of troops