I suggest that a return to the method of "territorial expansion" in the most previous version be made with some adjustments and enhancements. A method of expansion can be provided that does not give advantage to those who are able to spend more time online (i.e. the means to expand can accrue as now with possibly the addition of manpower and used anytime during a turn to provide the desired results in subsequent turns). I have found that it is a rare individual indeed who cannot log into the game at least once or twice per turn.

The other problem of using buildings for walls can be alleviated by limiting the number of farms, lumber mills, mines and quarries, etcetera and where they can be built (i.e. near trees, near mountains, etcetera);
and with a few changes like "pass through farms" and at least 2 spaces between facilities.

My reasons for this suggestion are:

1) I think there is an extreme imbalance problem caused by players often able to capture an opponents castle too early and too easily for various reasons resulting in huge advantages to that player.

2) A means of peacefully gradually being able to close the wide gap of advantages of these very early conquorers is necessary because it cannot be reasoned that it is their "just reward" to be in an overly advantageous position over other players.
There are extenuating circumstances that can be reasoned as "unfair" including everthing from capturing a castle of an inactive player to making war with a player with a history of being a good agressor but a poor defender.

3) IMO I still think there is an extreme shortage of resources which tends to give a tremendous advantage to the early second castle owner who can very early and quickly gain a wide lead in tech reaserch alone.

4) Although I enjoy the game I cannot deny that I like being in greater control of more of the aspects that have an effect on the way I am able to play it.

5) I think a faster game with much more action is possible without giving unfair advantage to players who are online more often because they would be able to use what they have as now within a turn and not be able to do more until the next turn.
Combat is basicly fine as is except where we are making improvements and would not be changed by this suggestion.

TR

TR I am surprised, I actually agree with most of your post. The one thing I disagree on is if a player takes a castle early through battle, not through inactivity, then they deserve the advantage that they get.

This is why I think that way. When ever I have been in a war for a castle early in the game it limits my ability to tech up. After all I need troops to provide defense, or to continue my attack against my opponent. The money I would be using teching up, is being taken by the need for troops. During this time a player who isn't at war gets to tech and upgrade more. Allowing them to have better troops, as they haven't been in a war they probably have more troops to. So the early battler gets an advantage in capturing a second territory, while the player who sits back gets an advantage by being better prepared and quite possibly having a larger army.

In the long run a player with two castles will get ahead of a player with one. But right after, and for several turns the player with one castle has a slight edge, provided they used the time to get their techs and upgrades.

"GK"
I too can almost go along with your reasoning because true I am forgetting that I did used to use a more defensive early strategy;
but in several games I have found myself not only an early target of early agressors, struggling for as long as 90+ turns from the turn of initial attack, but also often "double teamed";
So that I have finally in my past few games tried to adapt to the early agressor by investing more into certain specific troop production and less into the defensive techs that I always tried to be sure to get.

Now even in my most recent game I have attempted to change strategy to be not quite an early agressor but rather at least a "before noon agressor" again investing much less in tech and more in troop production and all because the early agressor causes a need to "go with the flow" so to speak. The result is that there is much luck involved as to whether you "zigged" when you should have "zagged" diplomatically, strategically and even with choice of opponents.
Yes that too because most of my opponents who have defeated me have taken in excess of 40 and even 60 turns to do it;
yet I see very often players with good ranking being defeated in under 20 turns.

So IMO the bottom line is that the early agressor tends to force a strategy from other players where there is much less of an early gap in tech but then when he gains his second castle with an early conquest he can quickly within 5 ot 6 turns open as much as a 5 tech advantage.

TR

I don't have any problem with someone actually winning a castle, just the free ones.

Building a building to block your gate is OK by me.

"Mog"
Using farms as walls to block opponents was a problem in the previous version because as many as 3 and 4 per turn could be built depending on available resources and manpower;
So that's why I suggested making them passable and 2 spaces apart.

TR

as you may recall, the new version (war of kings) is territory based. you must capture each zone/territory in order to gain land and income.

since your income is defined by your lands and taxes from populations, you cant just sit in your castle and reap 3000 gold each turn without care for outside resources.

lose the lands, and you lose the income they provide.

of course, this is too complex a system to add to this version.

Sorry yes I do recall "Req"
and that sounds great.
I'm sure looking forward to the "new version".


TR