Quark Games forums

But that's the thing crusher. It's so spread out, you could be three regions away from the nearest one. Now please explain how that would put that player on the same field as a player that's an hour away from it. Assuming the players are active of course

But you would have to lose your wall bonus in order to defend against someone walking across the countryside, so it would be foolish to do so. And really, I doubt it would be that useful.

I understand that fire and this benefit wont just apear by "default" as the world begins, i mean you have to plan with allies to capture a city to male a "fort" i was thinking this would be awesome, befause the surounding cities can focus on defence troops while the cities on the inside that are defended, attack, so it basically like a fort or a settlement for example. I understand what you guys are saying. But you hve to set yourself up for it. Sorta like claiming the best land, since really every soace in Valor provides the same oportunities... Not if you did it like this tho, some spaces would be more desirable, wich would create more "competition" as every zoologist would say. I think it would give Valor more spice. And if the world could be programed so there are lets say 10 of these "sweet spots" at least, Generated with nothing but Barbs holding the cities. So noone is "born" into its Glorious advantages. But that you have to Fight for it!

Crusher. I could see the idea work if every city or majority of cities were blocked on all sides. But if I'm denied access, I'll just walk around. I don't mind the time. And ziggurat, true there is countryside within the square but technically it would still be owned by the city's owner

As far as making sense goes, this doesn't really. Overall, cities take up a very small amount of space. You can go from Madrid to Berlin, for example, and not go through Paris. In fact, you'd have to go out of your way to go through a city in Valor. It makes a lot more sense to go through the surrounding countryside. Cities don't take up an entire square, they aren't that big. It is an interesting idea, but as far as being realistic, I don't think it is.

True, but the cities do not hve to be in adjacent proximity, there could be an empty space then on the NEXT advacent spot there were cities, i have seen this quite often and then the city which is surounded by allies gets capped, and noone surounding cant even help Defend, or what if there was a line of cities straight up and down, it makes no sence that one can just "walk" across, and no big deal. I think this is hard to make in a game like this, but if somehow it was implemented i would be really happy. Another plus is that it will make bartering and convincing a player to allow passage very interesting, and even start wars! Thank you guys for your opinions

Ok. So you're saying that not all cities touch 4-8 cities. Gotcha. Yes that's right. On rare occasion does this happen, but like you said, default is so that this occurrence is not abundant or even common

*meant isn't instead of in.

I said "default." It is set up like that so that every city in the world in touching one another.

Not true JGree. While it's not abundant, it does happen that cities are "protected" on all sides and diagonals.