Land fat, complete nonsence?

[bjornredtail]

 Well, do you think that the avidance of landfatness is an effective stragity, or a part thereof?  

[Ashyra Nightwing]

 Landfatness is not a sign of weakness. Landfatness means that you have enough troops to get a lot of land and keep it.

[Dixie Ros?]

 It's only smart to have it if you're building on it...

[Brain]

 There are two things that give an empire high NW.  Troops, and Food.

If an empires networth is a great deal lower than their land, the standard being 1000/1,000,000 land/networth ratio, than it is clear they don't have many troops OR food.  Because they obviously don't have many troops (which make up a lot of NW) they become an easy and juicy target.

If their networth and land are balanced (see above) then they have either a good amount of troops, or a decent amount of food.  Since they might have a fair amount of military, people can have second thoughts about attacking them.  Or they may only attack few times, fearing retaliation.

If an empire have significantly more NW then land, one of two things have happened.
1.   They are either a farmer, with lots of food and/or money, and don't do much attacking.  People tend to avoid attacking farmers because they end up looking dirty for attacking a defenceless empire.
2.  That person has a massive amount of troops.  They have probably just been hit hard losing a lot of their land, but little military.  That person, therefore has a big army (for the amount of land) and will be looking to reclaim his lost land.  Since as soon as he can, he will be attacking with a vengance (and suprising force considering his rank) attempting to recover what was lost, most people want to stay out of his way.  

So, as you can see, it is better to have as high a NW as possible.  Since NW is often made up of military, you want people to know that your military is strong and able to defend and retailate as needed.  Or, you have NW with food, and just make people think your strong to keep them from attacking you.

Either way.  High NW is good.  Higher NW is better.

[Riverpaw]

 Land fat has saved my rear too much for me to critisize it. It does make you a target, but can also save you from annilihation. It's best to have it, but not too much, I guess.

[Holby]

 It doesn't bother me. If I'm landfat, I know I'm a good target, but that doesn't mean I can't hold it.
It is inevitable for me if I want to gain a lot of land just out of protection,  because I do not have great skill with troops. Once established, very rarely am I lower than the 1k to 1m ratio, because I play leaders.

[Ashyra Nightwing]

 Yiss...Landfatness is good... If you see a land-anorexic player with a lot of successful attacks, attacking them would not be recommended, even if they are a good land source.  

[calria]

 I usually try for the ratio, or as high NW above it as I can get... However, if your landfatness is due to massive amounts of guards/barracks/huts, then it's not really a problem.

[Badrang the Tyrant]

 The higher NW compared with land the better.  Everytime I'm landfat, I get attacked a lot.  But raising your NW on this game is a lot harder than it used to be.  I still don't like the food being 1/3 the amount...

[caedo caelestis]

 Ever since blades/wolf/beatles brought in mass-food strats in era 1, and the all guard strat in turbo era 1, landfat means absolutely nothing.

[calria]

 Yeah, but a lot of players don't follow that stuff still...