Game Change Ideas

[Arthus]

I believe the idea of losing soldiers for attacking someone more powerful than you is a terrible idea. It further gives the top guy an advantage and aside from that, makes no sense.

Why would a small country who successfully invades a more powerful nation have soldiers desert them!? They should have more people join them because they clearly kick ass and beat people bigger than them.

If the small country fails on the other hand, maybe the desertion should stay, but successful attacks should not be penalized.

Now for bigger nations attacking smaller nations, they should suffer desertions because they are picking on the weak. But maybe, if they succeed, the desertion is less than if they fail? Cause seriously, if you fail on attacking a nation that is 3 times smaller than you, you deserve to have soldiers abandon you.

Thoughts?

[Freenhult]

If you read the desertion text, they leave because they're afraid of fighting the enemy.

Argument could go both ways... Hrm.

[Arthus]

Also, I know I've been bringing this up alot, but it's getting really frustrating. This land attack inbalance between mages and troops. I spent like 2 days attacking like crazy and gathered like 35k land just to be attacked by a mager and lose it all in 31 attacks. Nobody is going to be able to get as much land as mages now, so why not all go mage?

[Freenhult]

That should have gotten fixed...

[Arthus]

Look at the attack logs, look fixed to you?

[Shadow I]

mage attacks are more costly than troop attacks to a mage's production. They take down my ratio, and thereby my ability to produce cash and defend myself from other mages, as well as costing scrolls, which are scarce enough already. Mage attacks -should- take more than troop attacks, because in a run, as I have allready said, a mage cannot attack nearly as much as an indy without damaging their run.

[Arthus]

Ok, but doesn't that give the mage the chance to spend one run simply attacking everyone and gathering up all the land while the others can only take a fraction of it back? 31 troop attacks do not give you that much land. As it stands now, I'm gonna choose mage next set because it now has the ability to gather up the most land.

[Arthus]

And I have played mage enough to know that it's not so damaging. It is just as costly for a farmer to mass enough to break some indy who decides to try to lock land. He has to first buy the troops to break the indy, and support those troops while attacking.

[Shadow I]

but it's not as costly for an indy to do it, and farmer has always been the weaker of the three. That's an issue for rebalancing that strat, not an argument for weakening mages even further.

Meh, it's a point to consider. I will be leaving promis altogether for a few months after this set.

[Arthus]

Well if this stays as it is, I'm not going to bother playing or just play mage. I keep getting hit to very low by magers and CANNOT actually recover much due to the new land grab.

[Arthus]

Me maxing everyone with land got me about 16k land... Seems slightly.... inbalanced.

[Freenhult]

We're looking into it now.

[Shadow I]

Idea for a fix. If the defender has no troops in the type you attack in, you get twice as much land. That way, a determined indier can force gains higher. Makes sense realistically too - no defense means you get more for your attack.

[Arthus]

That doesn't really help. As long as the opponent has any of that troop he doesn't get twice as much.

Either make mage attacks take as much as troops or something that will accomplish the same thing. You know, magers DO NOT have to use mages to attack, they can use troops. Magers are just using mage attacks now because they take more land that can be taken away and have the advantage, yet again...

[Shadow I]

use mage attacks is more costly to the attacker than using troop attacks. This is fact. So why should they not get more for it? Maybe not as much more as they are now, but more.