Inactive Topic Bridged Islands

DeletedUser

Guest
Original Post
ok I been back a day and thought that bridged islands would be kinda cool to have added in. These would be 2-3 islands connected by a bridge possibly from islands that have farms to those that don't have any that way more people will want to start a city on the islands that don't have any now that they can have access to some inland farms from it. Think about it on your island there are either allies on it or dead cities. This would of course expand how you can use your ground troops to attack and in the even of an added land colonizer be a bit more useful.

Proposal
Connect 2-3 islands with a bridge/s

Reason
To increase the amount of cities you can attack with just ground forces

Details
Allow greater access for ground forces to attack with out jumping on ships. These bridged islands would be like one out of every dozen that was they would be a rare. *Suggested use: connect the colony islands(without farms) with the starter islands(with farms) to so people be more attracted to the ones without farms because with the selected few islands it have a way to have access to the farms on lets call it the main land.*

Balance/Abuse Prevention
can not be foreseen
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser18132

Guest
Couldn't I just crash my CS into the bridge and drown a couple poor villagers? Although I wouldn't get BP for it....
 

DeletedUser19554

Guest
i agree
doesn't anybody use format these days\

and also bad idea anyway
 

DeletedUser

Guest
If I may interject my 2 cents into the thread I started, F the format! If it is a bad idea say that, if it is good say that, if it needs more work then say that too instead of being unproductive and posting nothing but a format complaint.:Angry: Now how is it a bad idea for a few islands to be connected with a bridge? It would increase the number of cities that can be attacked with nothing more than ground forces as for you fear of crashing a colony ship we'll just assume that the ships can pass under it.

Thank You :)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
i like the idea of bridged island . . . but not the way ur suggesting . . . if u would like to, PM me

but yes format IS needed or else my eyes burn from blocks of words
 

DeletedUser20429

Guest
You do not seem to understand why format is there. It's there to make it easier to understand and read
 

DeletedUser

Guest
This is a similar idea to one I put forward about 18 months ago. I am for the idea of having the building of bridges, where the bridges cost say 100k of each resource to build over a period of time (similar method to building a wonder regarding resources and time).
A bridge could be similar to a city (ie: can be conquored and would take a city space) but unlike a city it could be destroyed by the conquorer (with say a 24 hour count down).
If this sounds interesting I could create a post outlining my full idea ... but as I said I put it forward 18 months ago and it was rejected at the time.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Even if this idea were implemented, it would rarely be used. The only advantage that building a bridge has is the ability to circumvent very large defensive navies for purposes of farming, getting bp from land troops, and breaking sieges. You have to confront your enemy's navy eventually if you're trying to conquer a city, unless something like a "colony wagon" were implemented into the game :p

It's definitely not worth 100K resources is what I'm saying. If I was an ancient greek, I wouldn't build a bridge to get to my enemy. If the enemy was too strong, I would bide my time, rally my troops, and go in stronger. In the same way, people playing this game won't use their resources to build a bridge, they'll conquer other cities for more population, which could then take on the initial target. Conceivably we could make bridges as cheap as necessary for them to be used in the game, but that wouldn't make sense because imagine how big those bridges would have to be!

Also, wouldn't the enemy just burn the bridge?

If bridges had some economic merit like you could demand from farming villages on both islands, that would make sense and they might be used by alliances with enough swag to make a long-term investment on their resources.
 

DeletedUser23909

Guest
I don't like the idea of building bridges or having bridges to begin with. Why not have just really big circuitous islands interspersed in the world. However, one possibility would be to have intermittent bridges formed at certain locations to correspond to rare extremely low tides. This could happen where the islands are close or with the little rock islands between. They would last only for a certain period, maybe 24-72 hours and then disappear. If you send troops across and the bridge disappears you lose the troops. I haven't thought this through, it just popped into my mind.
 

DeletedUser38487

Guest
Well why not just add larger islands with more city slots rather than having bridges?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
This is not such a bad idea.. especially if people can build bridges and conquer farming villages on other islands, but you can also destroy bridges... if this idea is improved a bit it could be really awesome
 

DeletedUser9320

Guest
This is an interesting idea. In a revolt world i could see this happening. It would add a lot to alliance strategy, by connecting islands land defense between alliance members would be more advantageous. Also, it could have a set-up like the WW's, you put resources into building a bridge between the closest island. You need to develop it and come up with more pro's for it in conquest world.
 

DeletedUser29194

Guest
How about being able to share our command over view with our alliance team mates , the idea being we can see attacks arriving to some ones cities and see the support being sent to each city , that way we can pick a better city to send defence or attack support to quicker /

just a thought what do you guys think
 

DeletedUser

Guest
awmcgregor said:
How about being able to share our command over view with our alliance team mates , the idea being we can see attacks arriving to some ones cities and see the support being sent to each city , that way we can pick a better city to send defence or attack support to quicker /

just a thought what do you guys think
Click to expand...

why on earth would you want simmers and inactive`s to survive longer? I understand your thought, but com`on, this is fun part of Grepolis to defend, brake sieges, support and etc... if you are away for more then a day activate VM, if its unplanned ask fellow alliance members to trip your towns(if its not done, since the whole purpose of TW is to spot an attack on friendly towns). I always say if you are away for to long, its only your own fault and you deserve to loose all your towns. I would do it opposite way, to delay defense report on TW an hour or two, well 30 minutes minimum... It would make this game a lot more fun, especially conquest worlds, because :pro:

oh and about the bridges, no! better lets make pirates and underground tunnels with hidden treasures (I) just kidding :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top