A Grepolis Themed Debate (3)

[DeletedUser]

I think both of them are equal, as you can get easily screwed in both situations. For instance, if you are the defender, and the attacker has a much larger force than your defense, you are dead. And if you are the attacker, and you have a poor attacking army, while the defender has a good defense, you are also dead.

 

[DeletedUser11965]

Defender: stacking

 

[DeletedUser]

Defend Until You are strong enuf to atack... When your alliance launch a mass attack you mut always go to... Otherwise you will feel excluded... if someone is harrasing someone in your alliance attack them... I think attack after defence is the best... If someone Bites you Go for them... Dont be a complete Turtle Be one with a Gun

 

[oskarghost96]

The defender The way of the turtle

no but its more fun, since you can just stack cities and all

 

[DeletedUser]

I don't like going to one extreme or the other. Both have their benefits so why not mix it up? Have some cities offensive, others defensive. This way you get the best of both worlds.
But of course, if I were forced to pick one, I'd go with offensive simply because I can farm with offensive troops, get more BP at my own will, and break others' souls.

 

[DeletedUser]

Attacker all the way.... there's NOTHING sweeter than marching a huge killer swordsman nuke into your enemy's city...

I just wish the defense didn't have such a huge advantage in battle.

 

[DeletedUser6029]

It is more fun to be attacker, it is more lucrative to be a defender in my opinion. Especially now that Defenders get bp.

 

[DeletedUser11965]

I don't want to be the attacker or the defender. I want to be the winner.

 

[Thrillology]

I like being on the attacking end, whether or not I get more bp because then I can sleep at night, however, I also like being the defender sometimes because of the battle points and sniping colony ships is fun, especially when someone gives me a challenge and has 20-30 second differences in their attacks (yup, happened to me before twice, I was successful once, failed the second time because of the loader.ajax).

Being the attacker outweighs being the defender in my opinion.
-I can sleep at night
-I can focus on other things
-I can complete my to-do list
-I don't get anxiety attacks when I'm off the computer

As a defender (in my case):
-I can't sleep
-I can't get off of Grepolis
-I can't stop getting gold and pouring it into advisers
-I can't stop shaking P)

It's a real challenge to be a defender, and a walk in the park as an attacker (From my experiences for me).

 

[DeletedUser]

You can sleep but what if their alliance attacks you while you sleep?

 

[Thrillology]

You can sleep but what if their alliance attacks you while you sleep?

I cry. ;_;
Just kidding.

I wish there was an alarm that woke me up! Then of course, I might use the alarm to wake up my enemies and cancel the attack (kidding).


If I'm attacked while sleeping, I would get on the next day and slaughter their troops with whatever forces I have remaining, which by that time I usually have support coming in (in multiple worlds I have tripwires set everywhere). Tripwires are a key to survival, especially a web.

However, I would much rather be attacking because when I attack I can sleep, but when I defend I can't.