Attacking Up

[Orcrist]

 I understand that there should be a stiff penalty for attacking someone below 1/2 your net worth (I think it's about a 4% army loss), but when attacking up, their should be no percent loss if you are attacking a horde in the top 3 spots, no matter the networth. This way, if a person has 20 mil networth but 6 mil rats, and s/he can break the 2nd rank player who has a net of 65 million, the person who wants to attack can get a fair amount of land. This would work well with the increase tower effectiveness, so that the top doesn't get impossible to break...

[Peace Alliance]

 attacking down is better for the game. if you attack down, it prevent land fattyness. i think attacking down should be incouraged. if you want to get the one with 20 bil NW then attack people below you untill your closer in NW... that'd work better for the games land :)

[Gen. Volkov]

 Yeah, but you incur penalties for attacking down too.

[Juska]

 I agree with Orcrist, take Holby for example.
 
I had 13mil rats and coudl break him a awhile back, we both lost around 750k rats per attack, but I was losing 4% each attack, I ended up selling down and waiting for more turns I was so ticked. There's no way a single empire can take down a higher empire.

[Peace Alliance]

 one option is that we could put the losses thing on a rate so that the higher your NW is, the larger the gap between penaltys. so the stronger you are, the more lower people could attack you.

but juska, you wouldn't have penaltys if you were good enough to attack him... why are we trying to reduce the ability to attack people who are higher? they're higher for a good reason.

[RazorClaw]

 Not so. I can get lots of cash, buy troops, get land, and then, to get high enough that people lose like 6% per attack, buy/generate tons of food.  

[Peace Alliance]

 then do it...

it would prove you are good, and if you are good, you are good enough to get high enough for people to have a harder time breaking you. defense is something thats hard enough already.