If you want to lessen the "luck" involved with this game, Req, don't allow inactive player's castles to be taken over. This is a huge piece of luck for the lucky one who happens to be next to it. Suddenly they have more money and more barracks. How is this fair? Just due to the placement of the castles, someone gets a huge advantage!

I suggest that when a player goes inactive, the castle becomes a dead issue. Nobody should get it. The player's pieces should also disappear, since they give extra experience to the lucky one, troops that don't fight back, just give a lot of free experience points.

Make us fight for castles, don't give them away for free!

(Thanks for the treats, The Seeker!)

Last Edited : Tuesday, 12 October 2004 - 09:54

This makes sense! Way to go Mog...I have to agree with you on this one


*hands Mog lots of moggie treats*

Yes
good one "Mog"

TR

No!!!
I send out lots of scouts just to find innactives, I work hard for my inactive castles!!!

Not as hard as you would if you were actually fighting active players, though!

I had actually considered starting another thread for this but it is really on topic except that I think a major re-think on some ideas of "honorable play" are necessary which may go beyond topic here.
Yes I have found that gaining a second castle is an awesome advantage just in the resource wealth alone of it;
So I definitely agree with preventing capture of inactive player's castles.

For example I have only recently gained enough resources to buy "tower tech" at about turn 28 because of attempting a different strategy and I am amazed that my opponent has built a second tower after having used large amounts of stone to buy walls and build a tower elsewhere along with large expenditures of stone for extra defences (i.e. even though he did defeat an opponent early at about turn 27 to gain his second castle).

In other words gaining a second castle along with the resource facilities is definitely an "awesome advantage" even when it is gained by making an early conquest. Removing unnecessary buildings gives a good return of resources and gold like e.g. a tower yields I think over 600 stone;
So that explains how my opponent was able to build a second tower so soon when if I don't use any more stone I may be able to build a tower about 9 turns from now.
A second castle along with the resources allows a player to open a wide lead in tech advances and upgrades especially;
So again I agree that this suggestion is worth strong consideration.

PS:
I decided that my off-topic comment/question was too long so I put it under "Questions" entitled "Re-think" but when reading it please refer back to this thread for the consequence of only having one castle while all of your adjacent opponents possibly gain 2 somehow.

TR

ture, but it is a known fact that the defender has a massive advantage. Now if a person is lucky enough to gain an inactivecastle that helps that person to even out the advantage the defender would have.

It's pure luck to get a free castle. I just got wiped out of a game where my opponent got one early on, he has a massive advantage over me. How is that fair?

Mog, what do you mean its pure luck!?!
I create lots and lots of mini scouts and send them out finding inactive castles.
In slow 21, I had about 3 castles which had been inactive.
HOW CAN THAT BE PURE LUCK!?!
unfortuantly it is insanly hard to defend 4 castles at once and it takes time to take over evry recource building
and I started attacking blackadder and soon became a little blood spot then Toxic rat being the optitionest he is takes my other castles......it is not so much of an advantige, because you have to defend more....

I think you misunderstand him...he means it was pure luck the opportunity came to you
Yes, you maximised your odds of getting an available castle, BUT - the castle could just as easily been on the other side of the map....and the higher you get, the less opportunity there is for this too.

well there is a certain amount of luck invovled but as about half of the people who que eventually go inactive, its really half chance if you use it!

to my understanding that's just in the lower level games, but not so much in the upper level games (where people who are here for a day can't queue for them then disappear).

well maby it is maby it isn't

Sadly, Bigfoot is right
Most 41+ games tend to have 1 or 2 inactives at most
And quite often...none

i posted something like this almost 2 months ago....

I hate the empty castle lots bieng able to be taken over, i even posted a solution to it.

Innactive players after 5-6 turns or however many stated the castle simply dissapears (i say 7 turns incase someones away for a long weekend)

for quitting players castle dissapears unless troops are within 5-10 squares however you want (prevents people from going "crap ive lost...QUIT"

Yes, that sounds good as well, DoRW.

thinking of the advantage one gets from a free castle beside him....if the inactive castles really get taken away....then it became a disadvantage to the guy for having travel far away to fight?...then u guys will argue tat its not fair tat the inactive castle being taken away and most player hav sum1 to fight beside them and i`ll hav to travel so far away
...
just my 2 cents?...

There would be other directions to go and the resource buildings would still be there to take, so it's not barren land.

i cannot see half of the castles in a game when i get there

It can be a disadvantige as you have to produce more troops to defend 2 castles or more, and you'll be spread out and one of the castles won't have walls so one will be a weak point...