Defensive alliances too weak or too strong?

Removing Vele's Helmet effect will fixed after next update

So, are you saying that vele's will no longer be removed by chain breaker?  Because I think, therefore, that there needs to be something to counter that.  Collective already have a 300% defense bonus and having chain breaker not work on vele's just increases that advantage with nothing for despots to use to balance the scales.

I really hope you aren't removing the effect and only changing description because once again you will give more defensive bonuses to collective players.  There still needs to be a balance. 

Chain Breaker is a defensive item mainly used to remove Plague Rumor and Rage Encaged and it clearly states that  it does not remove the effects of increased production or defense. I am surprised that fixing it is even being questioned here.   

Moreover, during an organized attack when 10+ players attack one city, each of the attackers has most likely applied Battle Cry to their armies. To counter only that effect the defender needs to use 10+ items on the attackers, in which case the defender is out of items for the next attacks that usually come on the same day. The way it's currently set up, the game clearly favors the Despots.

Another thing that should be taken under consideration is that any player can apply The Battle Cry to any allied marching army, The Helmet can only be applied by the owner of the city :( Therefore, to make it fair, any player allied with defender should be able to apply the Helmet on the attacked city. 

 The despots have hours to plan and coordinate, while the defenders need to react on a very short notice. Bringing an efficient amount of defending armies to the city attacked by multiple players, borders on miracle!!! The defenders are greatly outnumbered, and to counter that, they should be taking an advantage from both the Vele's Helmet and 300% defense bonus!

As someone who has been attacked while off line, giving a teammate the ability to apply the veles' helmet just as they do all the other effects would just seem logical.

With a high level tavern, defending armies can be any where on the map in a very short time, while it takes us hours to march. Making it impossible to make a second attack. Having the alleged number of armies (wish I had that many armies there) would be the only way to defeat the large number of reinforced armies that can reach there within 20 minutes. 

With a high level tavern, defending armies can be any where on the map in a very short time, while it takes us hours to march. Making it impossible to make a second attack. Having the alleged number of armies (wish I had that many armies there) would be the only way to defeat the large number of reinforced armies that can reach there within 20 minutes. 

Any member of the alliance can move in those reinforcements, we have to all be on to send our armies. Now that is unfair.

Attackers have the advantage of time to prepare an attack and coordinate many players from the same alliance or other alliances.

Defenders have only a small time to react to an attack. And, although they can ask help from friends from another alliance, friends outside the alliance don't get the warning message about the incoming attack and there is not much time (or maybe even none) to pm those that could be online at the moment and able to help. Therefore, we can mainly only count on alliance members that can reach the target on time.

I agree about the need to have some consistency between attackers and defenders. But we can't just apply the same rules because attackers and defenders play different roles in the game. Otherwise, defenders should have the warning message the moment the attack is launched. Consistency does not necessarily equal balance.

Payers from the same alliance could still move in armies, just not from the same player or associated. Because anyone in the alliance can move each others armies to reinforce, it is just as easy to move another army.

Where as we each have to be on to launch an attack and coordination of different alliances has many challenges.

That's biased opinion. Attackers can strike anywhere at any time while defenders need to be online 24/7 and paying attention to detect an attack and react on it. I cannot say it's unfar. Also being a defender is more risky because attackers risk only their army, if they loose they will retrain, while defender in case of defeat will not only loose army but could also loose buildings, not to mention resources.

*************************************************

*****Sorry, but is not true that attackers can strike anyway and anytime. As we are all spreading all over the world, coordinating a big attack with multiple players takes time and coordination, as we are not playing on the same frame time. Further more, brigantines are slower than last alpha. And sending the army far from home takes several K of food. Attackers are risking a lot too, considering that few units and few low level towers are able to wipe out douzens of units and sieges ( remember one report about 1 single hero with regeneration perks wiping douzens of units and sieges ). And retraining an army takes a LOT of time and a LOT of ressources. 

*******************************************************************

*******************************************************************

Furthermore, not all towns can be reinforced properly even with taverns and when detected early. Some of them could be out of reach for most of the alliance so only fraction of members will be able to reinformce before the attack hits. The statement "impossible to do second attack" is also an exaggregation.

*******************************************

***** A tavern high level reduce A LOT the time to send reinforcements. 10 or 15 minutes in general is more than enough to move from one side of the map to another.  An attacking army is detected when it is at 15 or 20 minutes far from the town. A SINGLE player is able to send all the necessary units from all the defending alliance to reinforce the attacked town. 1 player in Europe and another one in US, to cover all the meridians times, that's all they need the defenders , and a lot of skills too :-) ....Plus , in general the players under attack use a lada's after the first wave, so , while we are retraining for 3 days, they are building more towers and retrain more units. So, next time it wil be harder for the attackers.

**************************************

**************************************

You haven't been a serious defender in defending alliance so you can only see this from one side. Like it or not as an attacker, but the defense needs improvements to make it easier and more convenient to uphold the balance.

*****************************

*****Yes, we are on the other side of the fence, is true :-) ...but as long as you've created the fence, you have to admit that is has 2 sides, and listen both of them.  And analysing the battle reports will show you that losses suffered by ALL the attackers from few units and towers of a SINGLE defender are not balanced at all. So , 30% bonus + permanent 25% vele's, it is too much, imo :-)

 The despots have hours to plan and coordinate, while the defenders need to react on a very short notice. Bringing an efficient amount of defending armies to the city attacked by multiple players, borders on miracle!!! The defenders are greatly outnumbered, and to counter that, they should be taking an advantage from both the Vele's Helmet and 300% defense bonus!

You dont need a miracle LOL, all you need is some skilled commanders and the appropriate building allowing you to reinforce fastly a player under attack :-)

And for a collect player, all the attackers army are outnumbered compared to the tiny army that a defender is rising in general. Building military buildings increase construction time and decrease culture, yes , very difficult to handle those 2 things I agreed. BUT most of the collective player privilege expansion instead of defense....and then complain that a "huge" army destroy their defense composed by 5 braves, 5 legionaries and 5 towers :-). Firstly, rise your defense and then, expand, is the best way to fully enjoy this great game :-)))). 

Imo we attack collectivism alliances because that is what there are the most of. really not that many despotism players, and we are all friends so saying despot should only attack despot just puts friends against each other and I do not see that happening.

I"ve been in both a defensive and aggressive alliance.  In A4 Firefly was defensive for more than half the stage and I can tell you that our despot players suffered extreme damage while the collective did not. Even so, it was easier for a small aggressive alliance to do a decent amount of damage to our collective players that stage.

Increasing the defense bonus has the net effect of requiring despot players send even MORE armies to attack at one time because they have to in order to survive let alone take out a tower or two.

If you want to encourage more one on one PVP between all types of players, then you have to rebalance in favor of the attackers.  Otherwise, if your goal is to make collective players and alliances impossible to attack and defeat you might as well make separate servers for the two play styles.

Deleted as duplicate post.

Imo we attack collectivism alliances because that is what there are the most of. really not that many despotism players,

Tuey is right. the vast majority of alliances are Collect, which is the main reason we attack them. We have attacked collect players who were reinforced, but the reinforcing armies (about 5) only sent expl. dogs, deer, maybe even 4 legionnaires, which -needless to say- is bloody useless. They need to learn how to really defend themselves. They have the tools, but they don't use it.

It is not that despot is too strong, collect needs to learn how to defend. If a town is really defended, we lose all or a lot. 

I"ve been in both a defensive and aggressive alliance. 

That was a long time ago, PVP changed dramatically since then. You haven't been attacked by dozens of players at the same time back then.

My point is, now all the rebalancing has made it impossible for a small group like Alternative to do what they did before.  And that is why despot alliances send so many players to attack at one time.

IMO the balancing has gone too far in the other direction.  Last stage, Howl managed to wipe out half a dozen to 8 armies in one go on one attack suffering little damage.  Why?  He was probably the best defensive Commander on this game.

He taught the team what weapons to make to withstand our attacks and moved armies over as he should have done.  I and many others complimented him on his skill.  Had that alliance had more like him they would have been impossible to defeat.  Arya is absolutely right in that regard.  So no one person has to be online 24/7 to counter attacks.

And, yes, there are more collectivism alliances and they are just as aggressive in play style as despot only passively.  So, we all play aggressively in different ways. 

Moreover, I wonder how many despot alliances became despot because they were tired of being the defenders and wanted the ability to strike back or at least discourage others from hitting them.