PLAY NOW
FREE GAME DOWNLOAD

If a player is under truce they shouldn't be able to interfere in any form with attacks. As it stands players under truce are able to clock armies and/or towns. I remember a while back it was decided players under truce couldn't reinforce, in the same manner I think they shouldn't have any involvement with attacks while under truce.

Also if a player 30 days younger cant  be plundered or attacked, then they shouldn't be able to interfere with armies of players 30 days older!! What's fair is fair.  Just my personal opinion.

3 weeks 2 days ago

What's next, players under truth should be chat-blocked during an attack as they might give useful tips?

3 weeks 1 day ago

Reply to Bababandos :

What's next, players under truth should be chat-blocked during an attack as they might give useful tips?

Hmm, a bit of a knee-jerk reaction, to a thought out, sensible post from a fellow player, who is looking for a more balanced game for everyone

3 weeks 1 day ago

Reply to Valkyrie :

If a player is under truce they shouldn't be able to interfere in any form with attacks. As it stands players under truce are able to clock armies and/or towns. I remember a while back it was decided players under truce couldn't reinforce, in the same manner I think they shouldn't have any involvement with attacks while under truce.

Do attackers ever go under truce? (If yes, please tell example when)

Feeling when you are unable to join others in attack might be almost as bad as not being able to "reinforce at all" if I am correct :) no real attacking experience here sadly

Edited by SuperUser 3 weeks 0 days ago. Reason: typo

3 weeks 0 days ago

Bers, can you please address this issue? I would like to understand why a player 30 days younger (sometimes more) and under truce is able to apply clocks and/or interfere in any aspect of war of players over their 30 day limit? This seems highly unfair. If they cant be attacked while under truce or because of the 30 day rule then why can they be involved how is this fair?  

1 week 3 days ago

Reply to SuperUser :

If a player is under truce they shouldn't be able to interfere in any form with attacks. As it stands players under truce are able to clock armies and/or towns. I remember a while back it was decided players under truce couldn't reinforce, in the same manner I think they shouldn't have any involvement with attacks while under truce.

Do attackers ever go under truce? (If yes, please tell example when)

Feeling when you are unable to join others in attack might be almost as bad as not being able to "reinforce at all" if I am correct :) no real attacking experience here sadly

Well, yeah in some cases they might.  However, the mere fact that they don't normally is not relevant to the issue.  Obviously, if you are under truce you can't attack and are prevented from joining in.  The question is not whether attackers go under truce it's to what extent anyone under truce should be permitted to take part in battle in any form, including passively by applying  clockwork.  

1 week 3 days ago

I agree totally, this whole system needs re-assessing in my opinion. You either can or cant participate in attack/reinforcement. The whole situation of being under flags yet helping was bad enough but to have such a young player no-one can attack also able to influence is just wrong. Yes im a despot so u can argue I wouldnt like it but Im a person who believes in an even playing field and love it when a defender holds up well but not with an unfair advantage. I would just like an explanation of why this is allowed please. Many thanks

1 week 3 days ago

Reply to Valkyrie :

If a player is under truce they shouldn't be able to interfere in any form with attacks. As it stands players under truce are able to clock armies and/or towns. I remember a while back it was decided players under truce couldn't reinforce, in the same manner I think they shouldn't have any involvement with attacks while under truce.

Also if a player 30 days younger cant  be plundered or attacked, then they shouldn't be able to interfere with armies of players 30 days older!! What's fair is fair.  Just my personal opinion.

I disagree. I do realize that there are players that stack flags forever and then participate in defense in some ways (and that bugs me, too), but most use flags more strategically. The thing is, as defenders, you don't know when an attack will happen and the alliance needs to have everyone who is online be able to help when an attack happens. Don't forget that attackers have the benefit of surprise which really is a huge advantage. If defenders can't reinforce because of flags or 30-day rule, they can participate in other ways like clocking or scenting or sending others' troops. Clocks are hardly a threat anymore anyway now that attackers can pre-scent. Sure, they ultimately remove battle cry, but scenting can do that too. 

As for younger players not being able to interfere with armies of players 30 days older -- that would significantly impact the training of those younger players. It is one thing to watch an attack and kind of see what more experienced players are doing to defend, but most people learn by doing and attacks are perfect training opportunities. 

1 week 3 days ago

Reply to Valkyrie :

Bers, can you please address this issue? I would like to understand why a player 30 days younger (sometimes more) and under truce is able to apply clocks and/or interfere in any aspect of war of players over their 30 day limit? This seems highly unfair. If they cant be attacked while under truce or because of the 30 day rule then why can they be involved how is this fair?  

The items like that one can be applied by anyone to anyone, thus
limiting players under truce won't change anything all that much and
thus not much point in limiting it.

1 week 2 days ago