Sacking...

[Nohcnonk]

 

That sounds good. Yes, let's do that....

But then pretty much no one would steal using leaders, and everyone would sack.  Sacking becomes almost as powerful and much more easier to do than stealing.  Which I say is pretty wrong.  Not saying that because I use leaders, because not only do a relatively smaller group of people rely on leaders, but also the game could become crazy with everyone sacking.  Then it's more of a "Whoever Sacks The Most People With The Most Stuff Wins Game."

[Wolf Snare]

 True. Keep it the same as it is. Remember, with every strategy there are pros and cons...  

[Germania]

But then pretty much no one would steal using leaders, and everyone would sack.  Sacking becomes almost as powerful and much more easier to do than stealing.  Which I say is pretty wrong.  Not saying that because I use leaders, because not only do a relatively smaller group of people rely on leaders, but also the game could become crazy with everyone sacking.  Then it's more of a "Whoever Sacks The Most People With The Most Stuff Wins Game."

You have obviously never tried a sacking strategy.

[Nohcnonk]

 Hehe, nope.  I'd rather not make RWL more of an antagonizing place than it has to be.  Why?

[RazorClaw]

 Heh. Antagonizing! Bah! The world is unfair. Sacking simply allows the world to be unfair in one's favor.  

[Germania]

Hehe, nope.  I'd rather not make RWL more of an antagonizing place than it has to be.  Why?

Your theory of "Whoever Sacks The Most People With The Most Stuff Wins Game."  would never work. You would always need a steady supply of resource massers 3-6x your size to grow even close to them. Whenever you got close to their size in resources, the amount of goods sacked during each attack would dwindle at a rate where the masser could remass twice as fast as you could sack.

Also if everyone sacked, total in-game resources would simply dwindle without massers. Sacking would become completly pointless and not worth using.

[RazorClaw]

 To give my view on the subject,  sacking pwns!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Juska]

 You know, all troop strategies have alot less weakenesses now compared to leader and rescource massing strats.

[Nohcnonk]

 

Your theory of "Whoever Sacks The Most People With The Most Stuff Wins Game."  would never work. You would always need a steady supply of resource massers 3-6x your size to grow even close to them. Whenever you got close to their size in resources, the amount of goods sacked during each attack would dwindle at a rate where the masser could remass twice as fast as you could sack.

Also if everyone sacked, total in-game resources would simply dwindle without massers. Sacking would become completly pointless and not worth using.

Hmm, yeah, true.   But most people don't go 100% barracks, so they might not be getting much per sack, but they have enough to support their army.  And I think there will always be resource massers such as myself.  So it could be the massers up top, with a battle of sacking below them.  Eh, that's a little bit like Reg is now, as food is being used a lot for net, but definately not the case on Turbo.  Maybe not that great of a setup.  Or if people did stopped massing, it might not be very fun to have all low net people.  There would have to be a lot of land for anyone to get enough resources for the army needed to get ahead.   People will always sack though.  If it's not changed, it gives you just as much land as a normal attack and a few mil food or cash is better than none.

Yes, Germania, the game's fine how it is for me at least.   In fact, I'm doing exactly what you said; I don't attack on Turbo so that I can make resources over twice as fast as I lose them to sacking.  It works great.  It also seems like I'm the source of all food, land, and a lot of the cash, though the money is commonly used in building right away.  I'm wondering what would happen if I went on vacation or something.  This is like the massers stop playing.  For one, the land count wouldn't go up much at all and maybe decline if people drop land because no one has 100 billion dollars to buy half of their land, and if they did, they wouldn't be able to build on it.  Dunno about the rest, but not much building would get done.  But I think the only reason the game needs changing is because we don't have nearly as many people as we used to, and need something to attract them.  People aren't willing to try something new out for a good cause by themselves, so the game would have to be changed.

As a bottom line, I'd be content with sacking yeilding less land (which I've said in a different topic).  And... my mind just went blank.  But that would work.

To give my view on the subject, sacking pwns!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And you're evil. :P

You know, all troop strategies have alot less weakenesses now compared to leader and rescource massing strats.

The only change that has been made that works for troop massers against leaders is sacking and capture..  That's it.  I guess it's just now that more people realize how effective they can really be and/or leader massers are making more resources.  And that's not less weaknesses, it's just two big strong points.  Which makes them better all the same. ^_^

[Juska]

 Troop massers can now: 1. standard all the leader massers troops 2. Steal most of his food/cash 3. Decimate his leader force.

Leader massers can: 1. Break him with leaders 2. Break him with specialized troops 3. Maybe standard (doubtful) 4. Use offensive mission, if he has a shield your done.

[DemonSlavers]

 There is nothing wrong with sacking now? So just keep it the same. If it were as wrong as some people say it is it wouldnt be in the game ::agrees::