- Status
DeletedUser
Guest
The thread referred to was kind of rejected by everyone.
What's different in this idea is the idea of payment for the dissolution of the city. Here current there is a 5 CP payment needed.
DeletedUser
Guest
I just realized that this can be abused by players about to lose a city on the frontlines with an enemy, so they can prevent getting a dent on their grepostats. This would need a 24-48 hour cool-down before a city can disappear for whatever reason.
DeletedUser
Guest
Of course you can't just burn your city....
I would suggest that it takes up to 48 hours for the city to actually burn, with 24 hours before 'preparing' the city to burn.
DeletedUser
Guest
I don't understand why you would want to do this personally...if there is a city you don't want just swap it with someone within your alliance or a pact member and so then your alliance wouldn't be losing any cities. I guess this could be implemented, I would not be particularly against the idea I mean people could do so if they so wished (even though I don't get why).
+rep for effort and an idea thats atleast debateable.
+rep for effort and an idea thats atleast debateable.
DeletedUser
Guest
Sometimes that isn't the case. Many-a-time nobody will be interested in your city, for the same reason that you don't want it.
DeletedUser29371
Guest
Exactly i think Grepolis desperatley needs Burn City option....
Make it cost 16050 wood resources(so you cannot do it until its warehouse is lvl 20 + ceramics) and make it
Preparation for burning 12h Burning 24h
And in those 36h you cannot do anything to city but it can be farmed/revolted/conquered allthough the 24h it rapidly destroys itself until 175 aka gone!
DeletedUser
Guest
Hey There ~
I will be moving this to Improvements for further debate on this idea, as well as improving more on it.
Disclaimer: Just because it's getting moved doesn't mean the idea will be voted on. This is just a section to improve on the idea.
Thank you all for your patience ~
Lane
I will be moving this to Improvements for further debate on this idea, as well as improving more on it.
Disclaimer: Just because it's getting moved doesn't mean the idea will be voted on. This is just a section to improve on the idea.
Thank you all for your patience ~
Lane
DeletedUser8396
Guest
Thanks for moving this laney...i like this one
DeletedUser
Guest
Imagine you being attacked, and you have an enemy CS incoming on a revolt world..
You decide to have your ally send a closer CS and you go ghosting that city 1 minute before your allied CS hits.
Revolt is over, and the enemy needs to start from scratch. This idea can be abused.
EDIT: didn't see Horus had put the same thing up..
A 24 hour time-period untill the city goes ghost after you push the button would prevent this..
You decide to have your ally send a closer CS and you go ghosting that city 1 minute before your allied CS hits.
Revolt is over, and the enemy needs to start from scratch. This idea can be abused.
EDIT: didn't see Horus had put the same thing up..
A 24 hour time-period untill the city goes ghost after you push the button would prevent this..
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
I think that burning cities could be advantagous in some situation but I would imagine that most of the time it will just be a feature thats available that is never used. Personally I would rather just "Abandon City" with no CP loss for doing so. Burning cities for Speed 3 would mean 15 CP lost, which is about half of CP thats needed for most cities after a certain point. Infact early in the game it would be equal to not conquoring a few cities.
So yes, Im okay with this getting implimented, I just doubt that I would ever use the feature myself.
So yes, Im okay with this getting implimented, I just doubt that I would ever use the feature myself.
DeletedUser
Guest
this idea has passed and will be sent to the devs 
- Status