
Originally Posted by
MadWench
The ability to keep the main city would remain the same. A player would always keep their main.
Many people including myself spent a lot of money in Age I only to be gone on vacation and come back to one main city and 7 or 8 cities stolen.
So what is different about cities taking on damage when being attacked? That means that the guy attacking you won't just run off with a lvl 10 city. He'll have to do 50% rebuilding to get it back that way.
It is still worth takiing over if your build starting point is like lvl 6 or 7, but it could be higher than that even.
It would just depend on how hard you have to attack it to take it over.
Say, for instance, you know that EnemyA is attacking and most of his troops is out at another location. It would not take you nearly as much to then go attack EnemyA's city and take it over, thus, less damage would be done and less rebuild would be needed. And of course, we are talking about attacking one of EnemyA's 2nd-9th cities - not the main. You would only attack a main to start tearing down a rival bully and beat them back a bit.
For starters, players would abuse this to make other players quit completely by zeroing their last city completely so there were no buildings left at all. I'd imagine coming back to a city that lost all the level 10 buildings because of getting attacked would go over really well, and while losing a lot of cities can make you unhappy, imagine how much more unhappy you'd be if your last city had a fourth zero: 0 Loyalty, 0 Population, 0 buildings, level 0 Walls, level 1 TH. I'd love to see the rant you'd post after that happened.
But....the eternal ray of sunshine REALLY wanted to see you, so I helped brighten your day by removing the city from around you! ^.^
Bookmarks