Fortifications

Let me start with a simple statement. I dont like walls. I do see the reason behind them, simply because getting any tile bonus to maximum level would take probably 75 million of ressources (wild guess here, could be a lot more), and you can easily lose everything by losing the tile. Ppl want them protected to a degree. But said protection is realised suboptimally and maybe even represents a change out of necessity rather then the final solution. I strongly hope so.

Stalemates make games boring and walls are enforcing it.
Walls are slowing the game by removing a part of generated CP. They are reducing the CP from the current pve maximum of 99, it is not possible to reach the maximum as soon as there is a wall no matter how much AP the player brings.

Lack of ballance. While players can waste ressources to build them, they have no option to spend ressources to break them. Siegebreaking mechanics are required to remove the stalemate and return the ballance.

Difficulty aspect. Fighting in tiles with walls doesnt change anything apart of having to do more fights to get the same CP. There are plenty of possibilities to make fortifications a realistic threat instead of just being a cp obstacle. I have heard that the original idea was to have towers (and not walls) on those tiles that would also be present in the battle map. Great idea that offers a lot of sand to build a castle. Imagine those towers shooting the intruder, or being magically imbuilt granting the defender army a bonus or the attacker army a malus - possibly in the area around the tower. Or have a giant chained to a tree . By leveling fortifications you could increase the effect or the tower aoe/giant chain radius or have additional armies spawned as defensive mechanism. Dozens of options that grant a real defence to a tile instead of a the CP soak we currently have.

Gemsink and P2W. Walls have their ressource value, and their equivalent gem value. Since all players are very far away from max lvl buildings or full research, spending ressources on fortifications is slowing personal progress leading to the motivation to spend gems on ressources to be able to fortify tiles. Granted, good for you, more gems sold and stuff. BUT at current state with the cp absorption paying players have the ability to counter activity of other players which is very bad. This inevitably places guilds with real cash donators in significant advantage above guilds with higher activity. And successful games live from active people in the first place. I would not mind if the cp absorption system was changed with something that makes more sense.

Jester's licence:
With the ressource feature gems have too much power atm, you fixed that a little bit, but that is not enough. Raising price for repeated purchases in short time would ballance things out better. The option can be and is being abused to lead ecomony wars. I dont mind economy wars unless winning depends on gems - it turns the game to a P2W. Gems for personal advancement is a great feature, but gems that are excessively used for anything else are harming the game ballance.

I don't see anyone who wants the game itself to prosper arguing against anything you said, Tibr. These issues need to be addressed ASAP. Very good post.

Tibr wrote:

Let me start with a simple statement. I dont like walls. I do see the reason behind them, simply because getting any tile bonus to maximum level would take probably 75 million of ressources (wild guess here, could be a lot more), and you can easily lose everything by losing the tile. Ppl want them protected to a degree. But said protection is realised suboptimally and maybe even represents a change out of necessity rather then the final solution. I strongly hope so.

Stalemates make games boring and walls are enforcing it.
Walls are slowing the game by removing a part of generated CP. They are reducing the CP from the current pve maximum of 99, it is not possible to reach the maximum as soon as there is a wall no matter how much AP the player brings.

Lack of ballance. While players can waste ressources to build them, they have no option to spend ressources to break them. Siegebreaking mechanics are required to remove the stalemate and return the ballance.

Difficulty aspect. Fighting in tiles with walls doesnt change anything apart of having to do more fights to get the same CP. There are plenty of possibilities to make fortifications a realistic threat instead of just being a cp obstacle. I have heard that the original idea was to have towers (and not walls) on those tiles that would also be present in the battle map. Great idea that offers a lot of sand to build a castle. Imagine those towers shooting the intruder, or being magically imbuilt granting the defender army a bonus or the attacker army a malus - possibly in the area around the tower. Or have a giant chained to a tree . By leveling fortifications you could increase the effect or the tower aoe/giant chain radius or have additional armies spawned as defensive mechanism. Dozens of options that grant a real defence to a tile instead of a the CP soak we currently have.

Gemsink and P2W. Walls have their ressource value, and their equivalent gem value. Since all players are very far away from max lvl buildings or full research, spending ressources on fortifications is slowing personal progress leading to the motivation to spend gems on ressources to be able to fortify tiles. Granted, good for you, more gems sold and stuff. BUT at current state with the cp absorption paying players have the ability to counter activity of other players which is very bad. This inevitably places guilds with real cash donators in significant advantage above guilds with higher activity. And successful games live from active people in the first place. I would not mind if the cp absorption system was changed with something that makes more sense.

:joker:Jester's licence:
With the resource feature gems have too much power atm, you fixed that a little bit, but that is not enough. Raising price for repeated purchases in short time would ballance things out better. The option can be and is being abused to lead ecomony wars. I dont mind economy wars unless winning depends on gems - it turns the game to a P2W. Gems for personal advancement is a great feature, but gems that are excessively used for anything else are harming the game balance.

good points! we already also reflected and we agree in this issue and basically the current defense system is CP buying with resources with one extra comment... time is also part of the equation, so to build a wall to a serious level, you need time for the walls itself and the supplies buildings, and when you destroy the tile, you "destroy" the time spent on it. and this time cannot for now be bought with gems.

indeed an extremely rich gem player(we all know who we are talking about), can have a huge influence in the game buying thousands of cp's in walls. we the fallen actually dont want to attack for example 60, because then this gem rich guild would take it and build a 50% wall right in front of us. on the other hand, our own guild can build walls non stop already even without gems, so it seems that time constraints these users from having too much influence in the game...

i already suggested that archers and artis that usually are not so good units could have bonus against walls, but yeah, i would prefer in battle tower that the simple wall cp container system that we have.

Tibr wrote:

Lack of ballance. While players can waste ressources to build them, they have no option to spend ressources to break them. Siegebreaking mechanics are required to remove the stalemate and return the ballance.

Would be awesome if guilds can create some kind of "Siegebreaking" mechanic to destroy walls. Would add a cool side to the game.

current system doesnt encourage building walls on contested hexes due to high and repeat costs. the threat of losing the hex means you dont really want to up grade the supplies too much either so low walls are all you can get.


This encourages high walls on safe hexes in safe zones, and small ones in the middle.......

as an addon, perhaps you must include artillery in your attacks on a hex to do wall damage? - just a thought

in addition it would be better if the regional bonus upgrades stayed in place when a hex was conquered, this would encourage warfare, and make it worth conquering, instead of it being a massive cost and little benefit. losing a hex would also be less devastating in terms of time and resources spent, and woudl encourage the retaking of the area.......

That wouldn't help anything dave. Eventually all regions would be walled up to the teeth and the endless stalemate would become EVEN BIGGER.

Walls should fall, but supplies and bonus upgrades shouldn't completely disappear when a hex is conquered. You would expect the conquering force to take it for themselves, not just flatten everything and start from scratch.

Considering the enormous amount of resources put into upgrades, it makes sense to not have them entirely vanish when the hex is taken.

XViper wrote:

Walls should fall, but supplies and bonus upgrades shouldn't completely disappear when a hex is conquered. You would expect the conquering force to take it for themselves, not just flatten everything and start from scratch.

Considering the enormous amount of resources put into upgrades, it makes sense to not have them entirely vanish when the hex is taken.

I have to disagree.

Throughout history, when the enemy was about to conquer a region, the defenders would completely destroy the infrastructure in order to not help the enemy in the war effort. Only in rare cases, when the defenders were caught by surprise would the attackers capture the region unharmed.

As for the "siege weapons", I agree completely.

I guess you have a point.