Jimothy5
Chiliarch
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned but the fact that attacks on an alliance owned temple can be spelled pretty much infinitely is outrageous. Every CS my alliance has sent to temple steal attempts has been seastormed until the entire LS escort has been killed and it will bounce regardless of the timings.
127 will be my last olympus world unless this is fixed.
I am going to expand on this and tell a little story as well. This will sound a lot like me just whining (and it might be), but this issue is essentially game breaking for 127 at this point.
We lined up a timed OP on the o45 portal temple. If I may say so myself, it was a well planned and well executed OP. The temple had some low amount of DLU and about 4200 biremes + ~800 fireships. We lined up 30+ LS nukes within 2 hours TT, sent them at a time when most of the target alliance should be offline (they were mostly offline). I would say it took the not-so-slim-shady MRA (Shadow alliances) about 1 hour from initial launch to notice the OP. The CS was timed to the nukes, with a TT of approximately 1:31 (and hidden with Helmet of Invisibility from launch). Our timings were actually quite good for this op.
The target alliance started stacking more biremes, and at some point it was up to I think 6k birs. In fact, we quite easily cleared the stack regardless. My best timed LS nuke landed 4 seconds before the CS and it was already clear. We had at least 4-5 more LS nukes landing within 3 seconds of the CS.
HOWEVER, because they had the ability to endlessly spell the CS attack, they simply rotated players and continuously purified and Seastormed the escort of the CS. Even with our CS driver just watching the game screen to constantly cast another spell on the CS attack, it was simply not possible to save the CS escort. Credit to the Shadow people to getting a bit smarter with the tactics and timing several seastorms seconds after someone casting a purification (good utilization of a broken game mechanic). This is an utterly ridiculous and completely broken game mechanic.
Because of the fact that they only had to target spells on the CS, they actually were not even forced to actually play the game of Grepolis to save the temple. They did not have to try and snipe our CS with either birs beforehand or timed Myths afterwards. In fact, they just had to shuffle people in and out of the alliance until the escort was blown apart. They simply did not have to play the actual game to defend the CS, which is the most broken aspect of this game mechanic.....
The fact of the matter is that it becomes an unreasonably difficult to plan an OP to take a temple from another top level team. Unless there is a 10 minute CS to the temple (rare, and should not be a prerequisite to take a temple), it is almost guaranteed that the defending alliance can neutralize a CS before it ever gets close to landing.
If a defending alliance can already see the units in each attack and support, in addition to seeing which attacks are actually conquests, there is NO REASON to allow that team to also spell said attacks. If they have all the info needed to appropriately snipe/defend a CS attempt, there is no logical reason they should also be able to spell attacks, much less without limits or even cooldowns.
In terms of spells during a siege, I do not mind that part so much because only the person who sent the CS can cast spells, creating a bottleneck on how many spells can be cast, even if there is a good favor farming system in place. Although, if players cannot cast spells on incoming attacks to a siege on a city, there is no reason for this to happen on temple conquests.....
In my opinion, fixing this issue is fairly simple. Either disable spells on incoming attacks to temples (for balancing, even the players sending attacks should not be allowed to cast spells), or limit them the same way negative spells on actual cities are limited (based on world speed). Honestly, it is confounding that this ability was even included in the game in the first place.
Edited to correct details of the OP that I had slightly wrong.
Last edited: