Posts by Getafix

    I wish the morale bonus affected attackers. It seems like if the morale bonus kicked in when smaller players were attacking larger players, that would introduce some trade-offs to growth that would make gameplay and the strategies possible a lot more interesting.

    Right now, there is no positive benefit to keeping your account small, as an attacker. Sure, you get a bonus in defending your villages from someone trying to conquer them but let's face it, player-to-player attacks are so rare in kingdoms that this factor doesn't really influence any kind of strategic decision-making.

    However, if the morale bonus went both ways, then an offensive player actually does stand to gain somewhat by keeping his or her account small intentionally. You forego the resource development gain made possible by building more villages, and therefore your troop count probably suffers. But on the other hand, the troops you do have would get a bonus in attacking larger players.

    Someone may opt to build a huge hammer and then in the late-game catapult all their villages to get down to a small population again. They gain a super-duper advantage, but on the other hand, their army is kind of a glass cannon. Smash it once, and that's all she wrote.

    What do you all think of the idea of making the morale bonus go both ways?

    A question here regarding the morale bonus. I know that if a larger player attempts to attack/conquer a smaller player, the defending smaller player gets a morale bonus affecting both combat outcome and the ability of senators to reduce loyalty. But, does this morale bonus work both ways? If the smaller player attacks a bigger player, does the smaller player get a morale bonus?


    1) If a smaller player attacks a larger player, does the smaller player get a morale bonus?

    2) If a smaller player attempts to conquer from a larger player, do the senators of the smaller player get a morale bonus?

    Thanks in advance, devs, for taking time to answer this.

    One thing that could make gameplay easier would be if you could enter into the rally point a plan for some pre-arranged attacks to be executed by the system as part of an alliance-wide attack or timed defense operations.

    Sometimes coordinated attacks are wrecked because of internet connection problems. Being able to enter in an attack sequence to the rally point, and let the game execute the order automatically, would level the playing field as far as internet connection speeds go, and make the planning and execution of alliance-wide coordinated attacks a lot easier.

    Likewise, if defenders could pre-program when and where they would like to send timed defense, that would make response to attacks easier as well. It would probably be more of a boost to defenders than attackers unless the option was disabled for sitters.

    In the old days of travian it was possible to turn active players into farms (at least for a while) through croplocking.

    In kingdoms, in comparison to the old travian versions, it is so difficult to attack, disable, and cripple an active player's village to make it into a farm that most people don't even try to farm active players.

    I think that it would actually be a good thing to bring back hard croplocks. Make it so the hero cannot produce crop. Make croplands, warehouses, granaries, etc., cost crop again to train. Make troops cost some crop to train so that croplocked villages are tough to defend and regain control of.

    Then make the inactives get deleted faster.

    That oughta make for some more interesting gameplay.