a) Why shouldn't they?
b) Why shouldn't they sit at governour's villages. How would you decide that it's a lawful attack which stole them or whether it's "hiding". Besides: when they sit in a governour's tributes, at 0:05h server time, then they don't generate any VP.
c) Why should that? It's part of the game. Also here the question: how do you decide whether it's a legitimate attack - which the defender just chooses to not defend against or whether it's "giving away"?
It could be said that at least #1 is pretty low in the honor ranking of tactics but especially 2 and 3 have no problems with them and honestly going to vacation should be an option for dukes and kings, the burden on these roles is already really heavy (5-6 months of constant activity)- If systems is abused other penalties should be considered such as: disabling VP production while on vacation or increasing the cooldown for entering vacation instead of flat out disallowing people the use of the feature.
Real issues with all 3 of these lie in the way VP mechanics (especially interactions with wonders) work.
Things like dodging an attack on a treasury and then taking the treasures to make sure enemy doesn't get anything is legit tactic and is punished by destroying the treasury itself for "free" which loses a lot of potential VP generation which if repeated will erode the enemy's VP pool without never stealing one treasure. Except of course when the reality often is that VP doesn't actually matter and the alliance that finishes the wonder wins
a) Why shouldn't they?
b) Why shouldn't they sit at governour's villages. How would you decide that it's a lawful attack which stole them or whether it's "hiding". Besides: when they sit in a governour's tributes, at 0:05h server time, then they don't generate any VP.
c) Why should that? It's part of the game. Also here the question: how do you decide whether it's a legitimate attack - which the defender just chooses to not defend against or whether it's "giving away"?
A) Why should they? You commit to being Duke/King and are of interest to the enemy therefore. Abuse of vacation mode for those players is just lame and needs to be brought to attention for discussion again.
B) U just place them back at that time and repeat the matter every day. This tactic will soon be used by everyone and the servers will become even more stalemate then already.
C) Thats cleary a point where the rules need an update (preferably through game mechanics)
a) Of course you commit to being active as a duke or king. Yet everyone's real life can ask for a few days offline - so a vacation mode for those people who take on the responsibility is only fair. They often do more than most anyhow and it would be unfair to see their villages in ruings when they need to leave for whatever reason for a few days. It is already a burdon on the kingdom if one of the key personal is not available.
b) c) Of course, you can do that and have governour's steal their dukes' and kings' treasures. And it requires A LOT of activity and attention in a coordinated fashion by several. And makes the treasures more vulnerable at the same time. Whoever exercises the tactic to hide treasures in governour's villages earns that advantage as it's hard-earned.
With enough lee-way in large-scale attacks, that is a way to save a few treasures from villages you might not or cannot defend properly or where you are unsure that your defence will suffice - and where you can afford the time in advance to have one or several people empty the treasury. It's similar - yet even more expensive tactics - to disable the treasury altogether when the attack time is > 12h. Removing these two options would add two valid and very elaborate tactics from the disposal of active groups. It would lead to activity being less honoured.
A) Why should they? You commit to being Duke/King and are of interest to the enemy therefore. Abuse of vacation mode for those players is just lame and needs to be brought to attention for discussion again.B) U just place them back at that time and repeat the matter every day. This tactic will soon be used by everyone and the servers will become even more stalemate then already.
C) That's clearly a point where the rules need an update (preferably through game mechanics)
a) You don't need to end vacation mode for them, just make it not abusable. Can't go on vacation mode if there are real attacks incoming, no VP during that time, etc.
I could see it working for Dukes to not allow vacation mode. Just have them not be duke for a couple of weeks while on vacation. Might open up other ways to abuse the system i suppose, but give them an easy way to transfer treasures if there are no attacks incoming.
b) don't you have to have treasures for a certain time before they gain you VP? If not, maybe implement something like that?
If u go to vacation mode, u clearly are immune to attacks ... here is a strat a kingdom used in com2x3 ...
1) spy informs of an off op on the kingdom tomorrow
2) 2 dukes , a vice-king collects lot of treasures from other treasuries and go to vacation before attacks begin.
2) now they focus deff on the remaining treasuries with all of their deff.
3) off op crashes
The result :
the 2 dukes and vice-king still have a lot of vp production and safely hold
my suggestion :
1) king/duke cant go on vacation if any of his treasuries are active
or
2) king/duke cannot go to vacation and still have their VP production intact.
Giving away treasures should be banable.
we cant really tackle this mate. it doesnt make sense to me. How would wings work then?
Hiding treasures by govenors should cost you VP the same way if you are attacked normally (for chickenshit tactics - not victory)
Just make any player's attack on treasury with hero able to steal vp along with treasures..
so even a governor of kingdom's attack on treasury will result in vp loss...... This even makes sense to me. Why would u want to attack your own kingdom's treasury? Now now, how do we transfer treasures between treasuries then?
for this , i suggest the following change , when there is no incoming attacks from players outside kingdom on a treasury, govs can still hide treasures from the treasury and incur no vp loss. But the moment there is an attack from outside, all attacks on that treasury starting after that moment will incur the vp loss whether it is a gov within kingdom or otherwise.
This atleast would make sure an off op planned on stealing treasures and VP will not get upset by the 'hiding treasuries' strat without incurring a vp loss on the kingdom anyway.
so even a governor of kingdom's attack on treasury will result in vp loss...... This even makes sense to me. Why would u want to attack your own kingdom's treasury? Now now, how do we transfer treasures between treasuries then?
for this , i suggest the following change , when there is no incoming attacks from players outside kingdom on a treasury, govs can still hide treasures from the treasury and incur no vp loss. But the moment there is an attack from outside, all attacks on that treasury starting after that moment will incur the vp loss whether it is a gov within kingdom or otherwise.
This atleast would make sure an off op planned on stealing treasures and VP will not get upset by the 'hiding treasuries' strat without incurring a vp loss on the kingdom anyway.
VP losses can be mitigated if a duke/king attacks other duke/king. So you can still transfer treasures because loss=gain of VP
