Proposal Domination - Capture an Alliance Fortress

Silver Witch

Strategos
Ok ive had a long think about all the suggestions below and amended the idea slightly.


Proposal:

An Alliance Fortress that can be won through fighting in the middle section of Domination and once held provides ongoing benefits to all members within the alliance.

Reason:

The Dom concept is a fight to win but 6 months (which is a rough minimum time for a Dom world) is a long time to just keep fighting. The addition of a fortress that requires strategy, planning and an effort by the whole alliance would provide an extra dimension to the overall game.

I also think that there are many players who are not online all the time, who want to join in but are not always sure where to help and sometimes dont want to madly attack everyone. This contributes to the need to hug. Giving them a target to attack that helps the team will maintain their interest.

The requirements that I have suggested for capture of the fortress are also designed to minimise pact to win behaviours and once held I believe the benefits will help combat spamming in conquest worlds.

Details:

Capture of the Fortress

Every occupied ocean contains 10 islands with a fortress. These appear as soon as an ocean has a certain number of cities - say 300. The location of these islands is shown on the map below. There are 3 on each border so even when new oceans open for spawning there will always be a close fortress for all players. However the requirement for 300 cities means that running to the rim to build a fortress is pretty much impossible - if any group do try this probably their cities will not be included in the sweep so it becomes pointless.

The location of the fortress islands are known even before they become attackable. The central fortresses islands appear when the world opens - say 54/55/44/45. More open only when the numbers as specified above dictate. This allows for planning.

On a pre agreed date, I suggest 10 days prior to the start of the Dom period ( on a fast world that will mean after c10 weeks play), every alliance may designate their fortress and fight to capture it. Each alliance may only have 1 fortress. However a fortress may be abandoned and a new one designated at any time. Designation of a fortress island is subject to the following:

1. The alliance hold all the cities on the Fortress island. This will mean that alliances will have to plan which island they will designate and clear enemy cities in advance. Empty anchors are fine but will impact later - see below. Islands with a fortress will always be designated as valid for the purposes of Domination regardless of whether they would or would not be included within the sweep.


2. The fortress appears fully built but stacked with enemy troops which must be cleared prior to the alliance taking over. Defence is high - say 15k bir and 30k DLU with a wall.
 Each alliance must conquer their own fortress without outside assistance (here I suggest the WW alliance rules apply where no one can attack until they have been a member of the alliance for 72 hrs - maybe even longer)
.


Fortress Benefits

  • On completion of the fortress all members of an alliance who contributed to its capture receive a set of bonus tokens. I believe speed should also be rewarded here since that would indicate improved planning - say some extra tokens for 1st, 2nd and 3rd but everyone receives some tokens.


  • The fortress provides a defence or attack bonus to the alliance commensurate to the number of cities held on the island. So if all 20 anchors are filled then the alliance receives a 20% bonus. Once captured a fortress can never be lost but loss of a city on the island results in a 1% loss to the bonus, 2 city losses results in a 2% loss and so on. Cities on the island can never be less than 100% morale as a defender or under siege.



  • The alliance leaders/founders allocate the bonus as they wish to defence or attack but this cannot be changed more than once every 3 days and cannot exceed 20% for either defence or attack.

  • The bonus 1% can be taken by the enemy if an island city is captured provided the enemy also owns a fortress. This will mean it is possible for an alliance to have a 21% bonus with one extra city, 22% with 2 extra cities etc to allocate as they wish between def and attack.

  • If a city is lost the bonus reduces so there is an automatic reset and the leaders/founders have to reallocate their attack/support %.

  • Players must be in the alliance for 72 hours before they can benefit from the bonus. This will help the jump in jump out for avoiding the BP restrictions.

  • The fortress cannot be attacked but can be used by members of the alliance to dodge troops including myth units. Once dodged all troops can hide in the fortress. The tt from any alliance city to the fortress will be standardised - say 10minutes. The fortress has access to all temples on the island so as long as all 6 gods are represented in the island cities then all myths can be dodged there.


Other
Once captured alliance founders and leaders have control of the fortress. They can reallocate the def/attack bonus and send troops home if dodged there. Only a founder may choose to abandon the fortress.

Balance:
The fortress islands will need to be valid islands since players are asked to select them prior to the sweep. Other than that I cant think of any other adjustments to the game.

Abuse Prevention:
I dont think this is open to abuse. The ability to dodge myths safely with easy access is a massive benefit on a conquest world. This is why I believe it will help to combat spamming. It doesnt help save a city in the event of a CS but it does provide a safe haven when offline.

Theres VM - I think the fortress island cities will have to be excluded from VM. I hate to say this because it is a serious issue in WW but I cant see any other way to prevent this being abused. With only 20 cities they are easily swappable.

The loss of the attack/def bonus for 72 hrs after jumping out of the alliance will help with players abusing the BP rules.

Abuse of the fortress
It is possible for 2 alliances working together to obtain 2 fortresses and had off cities to provide the main alliance with easy extra bonus. This would entail a serious inv of time and resources but is a potential abuse. To help minimise this I suggest that cities held on the fortress island by a pact member do not count as extra bonus. I also think that all extra bonuses should be deactivated once Last Stand is in progress.

Summary:

Theres been so much talk on these forums about how Dom seems to go on forever and how its still full of hugging. Capture of a Fortress will provide a competitive focus requiring alliance cooperation halfway through the game. Dom is all about city numbers and this will help everyone gain bp at a crucial time in the game. Theres a lot of players even in Dom who dont want to go mad attacking everyone and this adds a bit of fun for everyone.

This idea does also work in the WW scenario - I've specified Dom because I just think it needs something to liven up the middle few months.

2019-03-19 (2).png


Additional notes
Dom timing and how the fortress fits in ( based on the timing for a fast Dom)

The initial time from world start to Dom era is 90 days. During this time alliances build their base and put their strategy in place. There is plenty to do and all to play for. I am suggesting that the fortress island locations are known throughout this period - those in 45/44/55/54 are known from the start and outer oceans are known once their population hits 300 cities. This enables an alliance to include the fortress in their planning process.

The fortress islands may be designated and the fighting started 10 days before the start of the next era so 80 days after the world start. The idea is that they take at least a week to actually capture - a kind of mini comp halfway through.

Then after that first 90 days the Dom era begins, the sweep happens so the valid islands are known but there is another 90 days where nothing much happens exept fighting. One alliance has to get 40% of cities. I would expect many alliances to still be capturing their fortresses at the start of the Dom era and then while they increase their city base they are able to use the bonuses and capture a few extra cities on other islands. The fortress capture is therefore approximately halfway through.


Thank you to the following players for your suggestions:
@Rachel.L
@monkey trouble
@molinillo
@TJ Kaniben
@MAC-9 who also provided the map
@1saaa
@Geminius
@Grandaizer
@Dementivs
@Skuduish
@Witchbane
 
Last edited:

Rachel.L

Phrourach
couple questions for you, SW

you specify a time for vm players to get back and send their troops but what happens if they don't?
i see this as an excuse to kick out a lot of players (one way to abuse it), but i'm a cynic

also, can you see good/ bad interactions with the constant events happening and their impact?

a nice idea and similar to one presented a while ago hoping to liven things
hope inno listens to some part
 

Silver Witch

Strategos
Well in terms of players coming out of VM if they dont send that would impact the alliance and I take your point that it would provide an excuse to kick. However if that were my alliance I would think it reasonable to kick a player that didnt participate in something like this. An alliance is there to help each other achieve a goal - theres not a lot of point being there if you dont join in. I said 72 hrs so they have plenty of time to do it. I actually think that this is something even the less active could join in fully - theres no timing involved - just send attacks when you come online.

The events would help I think - this is a serious commitment in terms of attacking. The bonus tokens are flexible if you mean theres just too many and in this case everyone gets them so its fair.
 

monkey trouble

Chiliarch
  • The fortress must then be defended by every member of the alliance - say with 10 bir per alliance city. No benefits may be allocated until every member of the alliance has sent their quota. Once sent these troops cannot be recalled. Players in VM and new members to an alliance must send their quota within 72 hours or the attack/defence bonus specified below is deactivated.
By this, did you mean that players RETURNING from VM have 72 hours to send? If I understand you correctly, you mean that while they are in VM, they should be exempt; however, once they return, they must send within that window or the bonus is lost. The way it is worded makes it look like they have 72 hours to return from VM and send or it's lost. This could be where Rachel is coming from with her comment.
 

Silver Witch

Strategos
By this, did you mean that players RETURNING from VM have 72 hours to send? If I understand you correctly, you mean that while they are in VM, they should be exempt; however, once they return, they must send within that window or the bonus is lost. The way it is worded makes it look like they have 72 hours to return from VM and send or it's lost. This could be where Rachel is coming from with her comment.
Yes thats exactly what I meant - thanks I will make it clearer.

Rachel sorry I didnt realise what you meant.
 

Rachel.L

Phrourach
Thanks SW and monkey, you both made everything clear
Just wanted to make certain if this was a similar (or different) situation to wws in your mind (vm affecting participation/ holding cities or not)
And I agree, if you are in the alliance, you should participate
 

molinillo

Phrourach
Thank you @silver witch for sharing this concept and the work you put into it!
After first reading your Fortress proposal it reminded me of the Persian conquest which was an out of ordinary event (more info here: https://wiki.en.grepolis.com/wiki/Persian_Conquest)
It is often easier to imagine how such a concept could be realized if we use our existing experience and put it into context, therefore I made this comparison:
Mid-/EndgamePersian ConquestWorld WondersFortress Capture
1. Island controlnot requiredrequired to hold bonus effectrequired for capture only
2. Placementrandom
1 supercity per ocean
(rock islands)
selected
7 islands
(farm islands)
random
10 islands per ocean
(valid islands)
3. Benefitstokens
(short term)
bonus effects
(long term)
tokens and bonus effects
4. Special attributes10M 'supercave'morale disabled,
always attackable (ban, VM)
morale disabled,
'supercamp' to dodge units
5. Operationconquestsend resources and protect islandssend units (attack and support for quota)
6. Strategyone-time conquestmultiple rebuildingone-time capture
7. Loss of control-loss of alliance bonuslowered alliance bonus


1. As for island control, Fortress Capture would be like Wonders reversed with a flick, the focus is on the battle from the beginning but losing is less demoralizing and we would get many chances to try again.

2. The proposed placement and number of Fortresses is problematic.
- some islands can be already inhabited where Fortresses appear thus some teams may have a more fortunate location than others
- 10 Fortresses per ocean and the linked bonuses may be too powerful if they are captured too quickly what is to be expected (regular battles may be paused until Fortresses are open)
- after the capture is finished on the competitive center oceans players would potentially try to unlock Fortresses on relative remote oceans and 'sim for Fortress' that would affect the domination territory too (probably in a bad way, more spread out worlds)

Proposal: only 1-2 available Fortresses per ocean on uninhabited rock islands, if its captured a new Fortress can appear.
(Similar to a renewing Persian conquest event.)

- on Domination the rock islands lost their purpose and value because they aren't valid islands
- probably better if a new feature doesn't affect the calculation of domination value
- teams would have to invest slots to get a bonus
- more focused battles on center oceans
- the game wouldn't burn out short term if not all fortresses were available right when the conditions are met (200 cities per ocean) a new Fortress whenever an alliance captured one would provide continuity and prevent the rewards from becoming too powerful


3. Can the bonus effect (improved defense / offense) be stacked if an alliance captured multiple fortresses / what would be the maximum of the bonus effects?
a./ if it can't be stacked the alliances would (maybe) go for more fortresses only to prevent others getting the bonus
b./ if it can be stacked it is potentially overpowering the already strong alliances, a cap should apply, or have various bonuses

4. Fortress could work as a 'supercamp' - like a bandit camp for the whole alliance that is only attackable (for myth dodge, etc.) - I suppose it may help Devs to reuse an existing feature instead of inventing something brand new.

5. Sending support as condition for the quota is not the best to force participation, especially if units would be lost... (what happens with the population? What if a player lost the city from where the quota was sent etc.)

Proposal: count the attacks as quota, only players who took part in the capture should benefit from tokens. Once the alliance captured the Fortress players who didn't participate or join late (quit and rejoin) should also capture the Fortress like defeating a bandit camp to unlock the alliance bonus (~cooldown).

6-7. It is a refreshing idea for Grepolis that once a Fortress would be captured we wouldn't have to work too hard to keep it, not the full progress would be lost only the bonuses lowered.


What I like the most about the proposal is that it responds to and could potentially fix the main problem of Domination: the missing loyalty, Fortresses could encourage bonding and prevent alliance switching.
 
Last edited:

Silver Witch

Strategos
Thank you @silver witch for sharing this concept and the work you put into it!
After first reading your Fortress proposal it reminded me of the Persian conquest which was an out of ordinary event (more info here: https://wiki.en.grepolis.com/wiki/Persian_Conquest)
It is often easier to imagine how such a concept could be realized if we use our existing experience and put it into context, therefore I made this comparison:
Mid-/EndgamePersian ConquestWorld WondersFortress Capture
1. Island controlnot requiredrequired to hold bonus effectrequired for capture only
2. Placementrandom
1 supercity per ocean
(rock islands)
selected
7 islands
(farm islands)
random
10 islands per ocean
(valid islands)
3. Benefitstokens
(short term)
bonus effects
(long term)
tokens and bonus effects
4. Special attributes10M 'supercave'morale disabled,
always attackable (ban, VM)
morale disabled,
'supercamp' to dodge units
5. Operationconquestsend resources and protect islandssend units (attack and support for quota)
6. Strategyone-time conquestmultiple rebuildingone-time capture
7. Loss of control-loss of alliance bonuslowered alliance bonus


1. As for island control, Fortress Capture would be like Wonders reversed with a flick, the focus is on the battle from the beginning but losing is less demoralizing and we would get many chances to try again.

2. The proposed placement and number of Fortresses is problematic.
- some islands can be already inhabited where Fortresses appear thus some teams may have a more fortunate location than others
- 10 Fortresses per ocean and the linked bonuses may be too powerful if they are captured too quickly what is to be expected (regular battles may be paused until Fortresses are open)
- after the capture is finished on the competitive center oceans players would potentially try to unlock Fortresses on relative remote oceans and 'sim for Fortress' that would affect the domination territory too (probably in a bad way, more spread out worlds)

Proposal: only 1-2 available Fortresses per ocean on uninhabited rock islands, if its captured a new Fortress can appear.
(Similar to a renewing Persian conquest event.)

- on Domination the rock islands lost their purpose and value because they aren't valid islands
- probably better if a new feature doesn't affect the calculation of domination value
- teams would have to invest slots to get a bonus
- more focused battles on center oceans
- the game wouldn't burn out short term if not all fortresses were available right when the conditions are met (200 cities per ocean) a new Fortress whenever an alliance captured one would provide continuity and prevent the rewards from becoming too powerful


3. Can the bonus effect (improved defense / offense) be stacked if an alliance captured multiple fortresses / what would be the maximum of the bonus effects?
a./ if it can't be stacked the alliances would (maybe) go for more fortresses only to prevent others getting the bonus
b./ if it can be stacked it is potentially overpowering the already strong alliances, a cap should apply, or have various bonuses

4. Fortress could work as a 'supercamp' - like a bandit camp for the whole alliance that is only attackable (for myth dodge, etc.) - I suppose it may help Devs to reuse an existing feature instead of inventing something brand new.

5. Sending support as condition for the quota is not the best to force participation, especially if units would be lost... (what happens with the population? What if a player lost the city from where the quota was sent etc.)

Proposal: count the attacks as quota, only players who took part in the capture should benefit from tokens. Once the alliance captured the Fortress players who didn't participate or join late (quit and rejoin) should also capture the Fortress like defeating a bandit camp to unlock the alliance bonus (~cooldown).

6-7. It is a refreshing idea for Grepolis that once a Fortress would be captured we wouldn't have to work too hard to keep it, not the full progress would be lost only the bonuses lowered.


What I like the most about the proposal is that it responds to and could potentially fix the main problem of Domination: the missing loyalty, Fortresses could encourage bonding and prevent alliance switching.
I think theres some great suggestions for improvement of this idea here - Im going to have another think and make some changes to this. I genuinely think that Dom needs something else added to it for the loyalty and to inspire in the down periods and I knew this wasnt perfect but i thought it was a start.

Thanks so much for the comments.
 

TJ Kaniben

Chiliarch
Thank you for this idea. Dom DEFINITELY needs something added to keep the mid game interesting. I like the idea of dodging troops to the Fortress, but they need to be able to stay there not just attack and return.

Also I would suggest each alliance can only have one Fortress.

Morale should definitely not be active on fortress island. No doubt players will try to colonise on fortress islands and turtle to make BP factories anyway, they shouldn’t get a morale bonus as well.

I don’t think it will discourage pacting/hugging. But someone said to me today that perhaps forum sharing should be disallowed in Dom, that would certainly make hugging harder!

The current trend of players jumping out of alliances for BP reasons may also be curbed with the Fortress concept, but the 72hr standdown may not be long enough to discourage alliance jumping.
 
Last edited:

Silver Witch

Strategos
Thank you for this idea. Dom DEFINITELY needs something added to keep the mid game interesting. I like the idea of dodging troops to the Fortress, but they need to be able to stay there not just attack and return.

Also I would suggest each alliance can only have one Fortress.

Morale should definitely not be active on fortress island. No doubt players will try to colonise on fortress islands and turtle to make BP factories anyway, they shouldn’t get a morale bonus as well.

I don’t think it will discourage pacting/hugging. But someone said to me today that perhaps forum sharing should be disallowed in Dom, that would certainly make hugging harder!

The current trend of players jumping out of alliances for BP reasons may also be curbed with the Fortress concept, but the 72hr standdown may not be long enough to discourage alliance jumping.
Thanks TJ thats helpful. I will wait for a few more comments and then attempt to revamp this a bit taking everyones ideas into consideration. I def think I can improve on this.
 

MAC-9

Phrourach
I like this idea. we could expand on it a bit. the fortresses could be placed on set islands on the map, but also make them different levels. in the very center of the map would be the largest fortress with the best bonus. in the center of each core ocean would be medium sized fortresses with medium lvl bonuses. then have smaller fortresses with smaller bonuses for the rim. each fortress has a point value for the different sizes... like 3 points for the large, then 2 then 1 point for the others for a total of 16. hold like 11 points worth for a certain amount of time, or whatever makes sense. it has a lot of potential.
 
Last edited:

1saaa

Strategos
this idea is brilliant!

it would shake domination up a lot and make it much more exciting.

perhaps making a fortress have a major buff for cities on the island where the fortress is built may be a good idea?

that way key islands could be held more effectively using fortresses.
 

Silver Witch

Strategos
I'm giving this a couple more days and then I will rework the basic idea to try and incorporate the suggestions here. @MAC-9 you can help me with a map :)
 

Geminius

Taxiarch
I like this alot, I think as Mac9 stated, "it has a lot of potential".

Good work on reinvigorating this Idea Silverwitch.

Just to throw in Extra Ideas. (My apologies if this has already previously been thought about)

Could the Fortresses be available from around a month after the world opens? With the fortresses requiring a level upgrade, perhaps with 5 level upgrades (More or less whatever suits.)
A bit like the old school attack on the farming villages. With each level upgrade requiring a more difficult defensive army to defeat.

Each time the level upgrade has been made, the alliance wins a set of boost points (Representing a percentage increase) 4 boost points gained per upgrade (=4% boost).

The alliance leadership would then gets to allocate boost points to a choice of Attack, Defense, Speed, Resources and Favor.
*Speed would apply to both Market Transfer (Handy for WW's Servers) as well as Troop Movement.

Eventually Defeating 5 defending armies therefore gets you 20 Buff points. (ABP gains could also apply)

Certain Islands (following Mac9's suggestion) could provide a Bonus set of of boost points.

The most Valuable Island/s could have a further 10 boost points available, which could be available to use when the Alliance gains control of all the anchor points on the Fortress Island, and wins it's first level 1 battle/clearance.

In total an alliance could therefore eventually gain a maximum of 30 boost points (with the rarest fortress island/s under it's control), but probably should only be able to allocate a maximum of 20 points to either of the 5 buffs.

As an example: The alliance leadership may decide to allocate

a). 10 boost points to attack (10% attack increase), 10 Boost points to Resources (10% increased resource production), and 10 boost points to Favor (10% increased favor production).

b.) 20 boost points to defense (20% defense increase), 10 Boost points to speed (10% increased of troop and market movement).

etc.........

Leadership can reset boost points as it sees fit, but would have to simularily wait out a certain time period.
*Alternatively.... if the Founder pays 20k in gold He/She can reset all the boost points immediately... (now wouldn't that upset the guys from the anti Goldblowers Union). Can probably leave that part out.

Other selected Islands would offer a bonus 5 boost points or none at all.

The alliance would never loose it's initial 10 or 5 Boost points for controlling an Island and winning it's first level clearance. Although your original outline would still apply with 1 boost point reduced with every alliance city lost.

Either way I like this fortress idea and support the original outline.
 
Last edited:

Silver Witch

Strategos
Thanks Gem. I have been a bit busy recently so havent got to revamping this. I like your ideas.

theres so much now I cant work out what to add and what not to - the ideas here are amazing - seriously appreciate the input from all of you. i dont want to make it too complex to start. Im trying to give Dom some interest in the slow middle leg when we all need something to inspire us but nothing that takes away from the overall game that is fight to win the world.
 

Pro-Grep

Phrourach
Idea looks for me really good, since it will give new life to Domination worlds, let's take en110, everything is dead there, I'm just simming to see how situation goes there and I have 7 cities in the core on Domination islands, during more than a month, no one even tried to attack me, that proves how active world turns into simming world during huge 6 months period.

Also got few questions and like a suggestion:

Questions:

1. So this will be just like a bonus game for Domination worlds, other than that to win Domination worlds all the rules say same right? I mean reaching certain percentage of domination and activating last stand.
2. Also you say that fortresses pop up once there will be 200 cities in the ocean, that means that it will pop up at very early stage, but cannot be attacked before Domination starts, correct?
3. You say all oceans will have 10 fortresses, does each fortress give different bonus, or you need to conquer all 10 fortresses to get Bonus.
4. Does it somehow affect winning of the world, if any alliance has conquered more fortresses? Or is it essential to remove all enemy cities from fortresses conquered by them?
5. If enemy can't take fortress once it's taken, what's the profit of sending LTS to the fortress?
6. Should the fortress cleared within certain period, like let's say 24 hours and if fail it resets and troops are back to maximum, or you can spend as much time as you want and troops never regenerate in fortress.
7. What will happen if player becomes internal and team mate takes over his/her city?
8. You said that you loose 1% bonus on each lost city on fortress island, what happens if you retake that city, you regain that 1% bonus or will it be lost forever? Also does that intruder gain that 1% bonus while you loose, or it's just lost from the game?

Suggestions:

In my opinion it will be way much better to have just 1 fortress in the heart of the world, have bigger stacks and so on, so every alliance will start from the beginning to seek towards that place, it will make world more aggressive and competitive and there won't be alliances who start in the rim, grow with use of gold and colonizations, avoid all hard core wars and once domination starts, they become one of top contenders.


Pros and Cons in my opinion:

Pros
It will make world more alive and fun to play, more challenging and awarding with great bonuses, also it can reduce mass hugging, because only one alliance can hold fortress and island can't be shared with pacted alliances. Also provider of extta BP, even due to bad ratios.

Cons
Getting fortress and conquering it will consume tons of co-ordination, time and troops, that will reduce battles within alliances and distract teams from main goal, controling as much cities as possible, reaching certain percentage and activating last stand mode.
 
Last edited:

Silver Witch

Strategos
Thanks for that feedback - i cant fully ans all of those questions but when i rework this idea i am going to take all ideas into consideration.

1. This is supposed to be something exciting involving the teamwork of just one alliance partway through Dom. It is supposed to provide a benefit to fighting (since otherwise it is effort for nothing) but not change the overall Dom fight to win strategy.

2. I am thinking that the fortresses become attackable just before the Dom period starts - only because its at the end of the predom period that things seem to go a bit stale. As soon as there is a fortress its attackable.

In terms of where they exist - im kind of chanding my mind a bit there - i like the rock idea that was posted and i wonder if it would be better if alliances could choose their own location.

3. I think each alliance should only have 1 - the idea is that this is an add on to the game and that its a serious commitment to capture - if you can capture several I think it will take time away from the game.

4. No I hadnt planned for this to have an effect on the win except insofar as additional attack/def power helps to conquer more cities

5. The LTS was more of an alliance commitment - however i take the point that if a player leaves its complicated so im thinking i might remove or change that aspect

6. I think setting targets like that would penalise smaller alliances so im not sure about introducing timescales - the quicker u get it the faster u get the bonuses and i was thinking that the first few to capture their fortress got an extra bonus as a one off. Speed of capture does indicate good alliance strategy and coordination not just strength.

7. Nothing - as long as the city belongs to the alliance

8. Yes if you retake the city the bonus is restored.
I hadnt thought about the taker getting a bonus but thats an intersting idea - maybe the taker gets the bonus added as long as they also have a fortress. What do u think.

I agree with your pros and cons - i dont want to make it too intensive to change the game.

The suggestion - i think that changes the game and gives an advantage to those who started quicker but I will think about this.
 

Pro-Grep

Phrourach
Thanks for your time and for the replies mate.

On your replies I got just two comments:
1. About each alliance setting fortress location by their will, will be not good imo, if all alliances can set fortress in their safe zones and everyone get a bonus, game won't be changed at all, everyone will have that bonus, until they loose all cities and if they loose ever, better will be setting certain amount of fortresses, like 1 in each ocean maybe dunno.

2. About taker getting 1% bonus instead of defenders, looks good idea for me, that will give more motivation and more interactions, it will become more challenging to defend those cities and to take as well, so that's extra motivation imo. It will most likely look like WW islands, but still.

Overall mate, again I want to tell that you have given great effort here and idea looks great, it just needs improvement of details and that's it.
 

Pro-Grep

Phrourach
Ok ive posted the update at the start - please re read the proposal and see if you think its any better.
Good one mate, I like it and hope more players will check your offer and give their opinions so this suggestion will become close to perfection.

Anyways still got few words to say :)

You say that each alliance can control only 1 Fortress, but I see you also added 1% extra bonus for intruder and I guess these two features come into contra with each other, since if one alliance owns fortress and manages to take all cities from enemy fortress island, they will definitely won't own that 2nd fortress, but whole 20% bonus will be moved towards their side. Also having total of 40% attack/defense boost is already huge, so thought about little change in this and got to this idea.


Suggestion:

So each alliance can own 1 Fortress and use all it's features and choose whether they want to have 20% attack or defense boost. If they manage to boot out all enemies from their Fortress island, they gain extra 20% bonus and enemy looses it, in this case this alliance will have 40% bonus boost, but this time they shouldn't have ability to choose whether they want 40% attack or defensive boost, but just make it balanced and the alliance will have 20% boost on both attack/defense and nothing can be changed there.

And after this, if by magick they manage to take at least 1 city from another (3rd) fortress they won't gain extra 1% bonus, but make it just vanish from enemies. This way stronger alliances won't have ability to reach supreme bonus and have huge bonus boosts, but they'll still have motivation to take enemy fortress cities, because that will reduce enemies' bonus. If enemy regains that city, that vanished 1% bonus goes back to them.