Well, you can build walls. CH and GH only give some protection against thieves and mages, just as walls only give some protection against attackers. What do you mean you can't do anything besides kill them? You can LB attackers to hurt them pretty bad...what else would you want done to them?

same old discussion once again

you cant protect yourself from them by getting a high dpa, yes you can build walls but they will still raze you. it just doesnt seem balanced to me, if it is ill accept that ofcourse

sorry, have only recently returned to the game, if this has been discussed to death earlier just ignore this then ill ask some alli m8´s

Well, I think there is at least a minor point since walls can be nullified quite easily by getting weaps. So basically there is a way to stop ops and decrease damage against magic/thievery but there isn't a way to stop damage against razes.
Also, walls are very much easier destroyed than GH/CH.

Would it be better if attackers destroyed GH/CH rather than homes?

It's just a question. But it might be. EDIT: I think it is.

BLASPHEMY CRUSADE!

I don't mind raze attack, its the same for all allies, but since bc, pillage all need 100% in order to suceed then raze should be the same, or those other attacks should be like raze attack are now (then dwarfs would be easier to kill aswell).

but attackers are a bit more limited in what targets they can seek, without any ability to destory homes the only effective damage they can do to help kill someone would be to take land....attackers seem to counter attackers

raze is like dragon mage, to me at least.....the thing about attackers is they weaken themself to attack where mages and thiefs don't really hurt themselves when they destory homes or other operations

you clearly haven't played as balrog yet

You assume that an attacker can't be a kick arse mage, which couldn't be more wrong...

I don't want to remove the raze attack, its a nice option that have helped many alliances to pull through kills. But since one only need to send 50% of the defender, then I think bc and pillage should work similar ofc pillage should have a 2 hours rest time for non vikings.

I disagree with changing BC and pillage because they have been the way they are for like...10yrs...you don't mess with tradition

wall do protect you like CH/GH they reduce lower building damage . can you can still take damage from raze with 20%walls just like a TM and still take damge with 20%CH/GH

increased raw defence equal to resistance to magic . lower building damage is equal to reduction in magic damage

20% of your land can be used for walls
1% walls gives 1% increased raw defence
1% walls gives 1.5% lower land losses (when attacked)
1% walls gives 1.5% lower military losses (when attacked)
1% walls gives 1.5% lower building damage (when attacked)

20% of your land can be constructed as churches
1% churches provides 2.5% resistance to magic
1% churches provides 2.5% reduction in magic damage

I think you didn't read what was posted earlier in this thread :P

Walls effect are countered with weaps AND they are ALOT easier to take out than CH/GH...

TM gets penalty for op'ing someone out of range, same should happen with raze to prevent bottomfeed kills.

For example, if target is less than 50% of attackers' size, damage is 50%

Raze already has the same size penalties as t/m as far as I know.



I feel like this way too. Unless there are clear advantages on changing the other attacks to suit raze, I would prefer (when in doubt) to stick to tradition and fix raze to stay in pace with the old attack types :P
(note however that pillage is quite a 'modern' attacktype :P)

why not then make raze an option only during wars?

why? are we going to make tm ops war only too?
bumping necroed threads

i say remove raze completely, makes attackers way to overpowered..

impossible to defend against 3 things for very long.. you can stay above attackers offense for standard attacks but thats quite hard for razes.. hence you need walls, preferably 20%.. 30% homes. 20% churches.. k so thats 70% gone. farms, markets bladiedadie.. there just isnt enough room.. and you need uberactivity to stay alive, for some races its pretty near impossible imo..

attackers have way too much fp, thats why most are attackers i think..

ahh where are those good old days attackers just had to take land and lower mage defense :), and be an eventual mage.. plenty of options were available i just think raze is too much..

my 2 cents

tbh a proper KT isn't survivable nor should it be imo(well unless you release half your military). While I do agree the damage from a raze in some cases is a bit much I don't think removing it the answer, maybe just make it 75-150% rather than 50% and lower the damage a bit

edit: I think people play attacker simply because any T/M is boring unless your killing others

ofc it should be survivable.. load of shit? else there is no reason for turtlemode whatsoever, well yeah for them to pick the easy targets first?..

used to be it was hard to kill a guy in turtlemode, you needed a double kt, or three grabs.. now its just show up online do your ops and you are dead.. and in case your not there probably is a 10k tribe above to raid you..

dunno, could be just me.. but i used to have fun in staying alive, but now it all seems so pointless.. killing made easy for noobs and since there are like 5 noobs playing its killing made easy for pro's..

#17s turtle modes are rather effective most of the time.

So is the size penalty. But yeah, it's pretty weird that the size penalty determines whether you die or not.

well our kt's on them were dreadfull and one was just plain unlucky..

i agree 100%

I've never been killed in one hour when I have been fully turtled, not once. It always takes 2 KT's at least and that's if I'm not around to rebuild and get ready to release.