Support restrictions

[DeletedUser]

On those worlds you tend to have defense villages with nobles.

You send a 3 noble train from an attack village, the 4th noble and trailing defence from a D village.

It still requires co-ordination skill, it is still worth sniping the 2nd and 3rd nobles of an attack train - there is a major skill in thinking about the parameters of the world and adapting your strategy......

 

[DeletedUser]

On those worlds you tend to have defense villages with nobles.

You send a 3 noble train from an attack village, the 4th noble and trailing defence from a D village.......

well there goes my next reply >.< but for those of you who dont know the noble that takes a village, any troops that were with him are considered support when they reach the village they and stay at that village so when you send a defensive village noble last you can buff him up with some major def :heavycavalry::heavycavalry::heavycavalry: and its just the same as sending a noble then sending def troops for support after (would only suggest doing this if you are 100% sure it will be the noble taking the village) if hes doesnt you just basically got rid of a lot of def for no reason

 

[DeletedUser]

Of course all of that has its limitations off the bat. You never know for sure how many nobles it will take to conquer a village. If you send four, and you need a fifth, you may have given that person the time they need to stack your target. If you send five nobles, but the fourth takes it, your defense doesn't stick around. If the player uses a full village of defense or more to snipe, you can easily lose a full village worth of troops without causing major losses on your opponent's part.

All in all, I've pretty much hated worlds where you can only support your tribe members. Sure, you know that you'll pretty much never run into a farm with troops in it. But those worlds always seem to be less skilled, and more of a repetitive brawl. And ironically, it seems like huggers are more inclined to form even larger families.

 

[DeletedUser]

yeah thats why you have to be completely certain, like you make sure you wait long enough for your 4th noble to not take then send your 5th with troops (or just put troops o 4th and 5th) but your right its hard to tell sometimes and could cause major problems for you, or someone attacking you if your so lucky as to catch someone messing up on this tactic

 

[DeletedUser]

Myself, I like to use alot of diversionary tactics, like sending out layers of support fakes along with fake trains, to keep the other guy guessing. There's just so much tactical diversity that you lose in worlds with support restrictions.

 

[DeletedUser]

Even if you send your 4th noble with a full defensive village worth of troops. It is pitifully weak when attacking long range. One of the reasons I quit world 19.

 

[DeletedUser]

I know its silly to post a thread like this but I do have to agree with the person who did. Ideally you should only be able to support those in your tribe, and your allies only. And that would probably do away with "personal allies" (unless they are in an allied tribe) as I think that is just stupid anyways. The trick would be to somehow write the programming so that you can only support an ally if both tribes have mutually marked each other as allies. That would make picking your allies more strategic also. I wouldn't mind the spiking of barbs being allowed as well.

 

[DeletedUser]

What would make this game more dramatic to my mind would be the ability to move support to another village without it first having to travel home.
I think this would lead to a lot more attack and stack and thus speed up the progress of conquers while also adding to defense options.

 

[DeletedUser]

What would make this game more dramatic to my mind would be the ability to move support to another village without it first having to travel home.
I think this would lead to a lot more attack and stack and thus speed up the progress of conquers while also adding to defense options.

Word.