support troops

DeletedUser

Guest
Proposal:
Make it so you can see incoming attacks on your support troops.


Reason:
It’s rather silly a city can see incoming attacks, but the troops inside can’t.

Details:
I just sent a bireme as support to a city I attacked and couldn’t see my incoming attack. How is this a strategy game if I can’t even see if someone is attacking my support troops?

Visual Aids:
none


Balance/Abuse Prevention:
There shouldn’t be a problem, because if the player would be online he could tell me about the incoming attack. A strategy game shouldn’t be about if you’re online or not.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
well idk wat realle to say to this besides that it would change the strategic aspect of the game

beings that this game is already too much in favor of the defender makes me want to say no . . . however we are all on the defending side at some point of the game which allows me to see the potential this may have . . . with that said

please continue to collaborate on this idea

moved to developments
 

DeletedUser

Guest
*Shudders*

I hate to think what would happen with this implemented..

Definitely a no from me. You get a report when your support is hit, that should be enough. Being able to see all attacks coming to your support anywhere would make a defending position too overpowered. This would basically be a stupidly enhanced version of the current 'tripwiring' strategy.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
i'll give u that corinth, however i wouldnt like to see this idea with an instant notification . . . more like a reverse spy u place it in a "tripwire" city and wen that city gets an incoming ur spy will have to travel back to ur city to tell u that . . . of course itd have to be hidden or u will instantly know as soon as u see that it is returning
 

DeletedUser

Guest
How would you justify an instant report when it gets hit, but a delayed notification when there is actually an incoming? If that were included, wouldn't it then make sense to have a similar delay from the time when the support is actually hit to when you receive the report? Also, if you were going on the idea of a spy travelling to your city to inform you, what if the attack was recalled? Would the notification-carrying spy automatically know. Those are just minor issues with the realistic side of the idea..

Could be a bit of an overload if there was a notification received every time your support had incomings, for every support and every incoming. If a city is stacked and you have, for example, support from 10 different cities there.. if that city then had 10 attacks incoming, that would be 10 notifications for every support. 100 notifications in total. Over the course of a world, I usually have support in hundreds of cities; tripwires, stacked cities, hidden nukes, etc.. if a notification was received for every single attack on every single one, I would hate it and want to deactivate it.. but then, of course, if it is taken to the level where you want to deactivate it, you lose the advantage provided by having it. So then an opponent could manipulate the system; Find a city where you know multiple people have multiple supports, and send hundreds of fake attacks. The resulting notification overload would likely cause some of the people there to deactivate the notifications entirely, leaving their support open to attack.

Of course, if people chose to deactivate it they would have to deal with the consequences but it seems the sort of thing that would be relatively easy to manipulate to torture an opponent with.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I was thinking it should be more like clicking on the troops in the troops outside section of your agora to see if there are incomings.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I'm giving this a no.

Sure it might "make sense." But this is more of an issue with game balance. There are already way too many advantages provided to the defender. With this idea. It would be way too hard to take a city from an active alliance. I shudder to think about how hard it would be to crack a turtle island.

Unless you can somehow come up with a balanced way to implement this without giving the defender an even bigger advantage. I will always give this idea a no vote.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
Just.... why?

You should not be able to see incoming troops when supporting, it would completely wreck the balance of defending, and make it easier for support to 'snipe' the CS.

Since the advantage is already stacked up with the defender, there is no way in with IG could justify stacking it up a bit more by giving DEFENDERS an ADVANTAGE in DEFENCE.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
WAVEBREAKER said:
Just.... why?
Click to expand...

Because hoping for someone to be offline is not a strategy.
Besides that the players who are online most of the time have enough advantages.

You should not be able to see incoming troops when supporting, it would completely wreck the balance of defending, and make it easier for support to 'snipe' the CS.
Click to expand...
Obviously!
So why should only players who are online most of the time have this advantage?
Is the only strategy in this game to be online most of the time??

Since the advantage is already stacked up with the defender, there is no way in with IG could justify stacking it up a bit more by giving DEFENDERS an ADVANTAGE in DEFENCE.
Click to expand...
There is no advantage for players who are online anyway.
This change is to balance things a little for players who are online a lot less.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Yes empaa...

The game is based around those who have the highest activity, organization, and knowledge of gameplay mechanics. There should be no reason that a player who is online every 2 days, or even a couple of days a week should have as much in their favor as a player who is online 3-6 hours a day. What is the point if there was no variation? I could come online after three days and there goes all the offensive units you built trying to take my cities.

Agree with others here; Terrible ideas like this will further slant the game towards defense in a very unfair way, to the point that offense would become a near-impossible form of strategy. Why not just give the defenders the ability to see everything in incoming attacks while we're at it, and force players to send a confirmation for the defender to accept before attacks are sent? That is the level of ridiculousness we are dealing with here.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
empaa said:
Because hoping for someone to be offline is
not a strategy.
Besides that the players who are online most of the time have enough advantages.
Click to expand...

Sure it is.

strat·e·gy/ˈstratəjē/Noun: A plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim.
The art of planning and directing overall military operations and movements in a war or battle.

You plan the attacks to land when the player is offline. Sounds like strategy to me.


Obviously!
So why should only players who are online most of the time have this advantage?
Is the only strategy in this game to be online most of the time??
Click to expand...
Yup. So you think somebody who only logs in 10 minutes a day should be on equal footing to someone who is more dedicated? I'm sure you're heard the phrase "Life isn't fair." Well in some sense, neither is grepo.


There is no advantage for players who are online anyway.
Click to expand...
Sure there is. Saying otherwise only shows a lack of experience and understanding of game mechanics. Which one should have when suggesting ideas. Or every single one could be shot down (like all of yours have so far).

This change is to balance things a little for players who are online a lot less.
Click to expand...
It will change it more than "a little." If your goal is to make it easier for people who have less time to defend, this is definitely the wrong way to do this. Because the implications of this idea for extremely active defenders is even greater.

To me, it seems like you need to spend some more time learning the game. The way it seems, is every time you are put at a disadvantage, you suggest an idea that would counteract that disadvantage. To that, I present this statement.

"I am bad. Therefore, the game is broken" :/
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
You are right chrss2128.

He/she comes into the Forum proposes rubbish idea, that lack depth and are completely shallow. Insults us by calling us 6 years olds, who have the mental capacity of a 3 year old, and then insults the mentally impaired.

Of the 3 ideas that empaa has proposed, all 3 have been terrible. Lacking depth and throwing the whole strategy of Grepolis out of the window. Empaa needs to go to Grepolis and play the game a bit, before coming back with his/her drole comments/ideas.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
chris0 said:
I agree with Wave, Empa needs a temporary ban from the forums or should not be able to post on the forums
Click to expand...

Don't..

Don't you even try to suggest that other people should be banned from the forums..

Seriously, don't even go there.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Im a strong no on this idea.
However that said, I have suggested in a different thread the idea of a "Diplomat" (Diplomat Idea). The Diplomat would cost 10,000 silver to hire & 1000 silver per day when not in his home city. Diplomat would move & send messages at the speed of a spy and can be killed by an attack on the city that he is in or by the owner of the city that he is in (ie: dont send a diplomat to someone thats not your ally or who regularly has his city cleared). Diplomats can not enter a city without the permission of the owner (except home city) and can be purchased with gold (meaning no 1000 silver per day to hire them when outside of your city).

I would be happy to put the idea of a Diplomat into its own thread if people like the idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top