Old 09-05-2017, 11:57 PM
JRRayder JRRayder is offline
Game Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 418
Lightbulb Play Balance Issues

Reduce length of worlds or cap the amount of cities a player can hold. This will address some concerns that a select few players will always dominate and force more alliance cooperation.

Posted on behalf of RedViper
Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2017, 10:31 AM
ixthlegion ixthlegion is offline
Squire (Level 1)
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 34
Thumbs up fair play and better gamr

I agree since food is capped 7K why not also cap te number of cities a player
can hold?

In the interests of the game - worlds should be 3-4 months long,

You will find it a more competitive game

Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2017, 08:48 AM
charles116 charles116 is offline
Squire (Level 1)
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 27
Default Agree

I agree that the worlds should be reduce to 4 month (3 games a year). some (like me) have been adhering to the notion of a 4 to 5 month build period and then go Armageddon the last month. A couple of points to this effect, one give people time to build and new players (or returning) don't get blasted to early and simply quite. In the last month, if you do lose during the final conflict, no worries a new game starts soon. a short world time will one, players won't be so large as they have less time to build, 2nd, more action as the final month is sooner. More restart times, which really helps the new players learning. Now, people don't have to stick to the armageddon plan which was adopted under the table by a few game vets, but still has merit.

my two cents...

Reply With Quote

length of world, maximum cities

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump