-
Sarge, a garrison cap is a defense cap, because your army is your main defense, so when you propose a limit on the garrison size, it's a limit on defense, which is what I meant.
While it makes SENSE to not have 1 million in one city, you do run into the problem if you shorten the size of a defense, the big, aggressive alliances will come in and just crush everyone, and take those cities. I'm in a big alliance, and one of the reasons we don't take tons of cities is because it costs so much to attack them.
Allowing a player to build an unrealistic defense in this online format to deter attacks is ok with me, but they should also STILL be able to be attacked. Putting the 100k cap prevents high level warfare, which MOST good players would be drawn to. Real combat, real battles, real rewards.
NOW, if you could come up with a system to limit the army sizes and prevent 5 on 1 type destruction of that city, which in this massive online player type game is going to happen with high frequency otherwise, I'd be all for it.
I prefer things scaled down.
As for the NERF, the silent nerf, it still can't be defended, and yeah, players have over 1 billion food (like me) and even at my -10 mil/hr food drainage in some cities, it's going to last a while.
IMO, they should NOT have Barb cities at all (or very, very few), and make the valley wars more interesting and 10,000 times more rewarding. The struggle should be between whether to have food valleys, lumber valleys, etc, and these level 10 type valleys should be worth something, and the land not changing so much.
Then, you'd see some real strategy, warring , etc. Current format has NO checks/balances, and silently nerfing in the middle of the night at a few stabs here/there is blind, stupid & solves nothing.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
Bookmarks