Quark Games forums

And you would also be able to have to have tons of troops in the city he is attacking plus his troops are out of his city for a while and he has almost no troops else where attack those cities and you get loads of cities 10 cities is worth more than 1 city see where the strategy comes into play

Gidude: Imagine if you were the top player, having hundreds of cities with an army in a single city of 1 million knights and 1 millions zerks.

Yes, your other cities might be weak, but against that army all else falls. Hit a city with that, and have 5 waves of scholars behind it hitting seconds after. Rinse repeat.

This is the problem with your suggestion. It also creates a large imbalance due to how large of an army you could create.

That's the point I was trying to make thank you gidude hopefully that explains it easier

I love the current system in place as there are no unbalances however my suggestion is that we have the a collaborative population cap but ur farms are also collaborative as well so if u build a lvl 30 farm then u can have that many units throught ur empire so if u have many lvl 30 farms then u can have tons of troops I one city but not a lot else were in other words ur cities all share 1 farm but u can't like valor gamer suggested but it can only be the population cap can only be controlled by all the farms combined does this make sense? I think it would make this game even more stategic as u have to protect all ur cities and not just compile every unit in 1 city lol Thats my 2 cents

I dislike arbitrary, artificial limits. Why 2 weeks and not 3? Why not 1.5 or 1 week? Or 3 days?

I prefer the current system in place... when your city can sustain its own troops, it can have its own troops. If you want to speed things along then send resources so that you can build the barracks/stables/workshops and ignore the resource buildings.

But the time factor balances distance fighting.

How about u can only transfer troops to YOUR cities and they have ro be at least two weeks old

Essentially you just need the farm, rally point, barracks and warehouse in order to build up an army all your resources can b sent from your other cities. But yes it's much more viable for the city to b self sufficient

Well it would definitely benefit you to build up a conquered city, there is no doubt about that. But I think what Stark is saying is that if you could just as easily move troops to and fro, you wouldn't have to rebuild the city. You can leave it demolished and there would be no necessity in leveling it. As is, from my understanding (only one city), you have to level up your city to be able to establish a military there.

If my understanding is correct, I prefer it as is.

Sorry I don't agree, if you conquer a city it would still benefit you to build it up, increase in resource revenue population cap ability to buy scholarships etc.

When any nation attempts to take control of an area it moves it army nearby, Britain and the falklands, NATO and Iraq, it would bring more use to your troops as you go along otherwise you end up with pile of troops sitting around doing nothing and of no use whatsoever.

Because resources do not conquer cities. You can move resources to a newly conquered city, but it still takes time to build it up to the point that it can both sustain itself with resources and crank out troops.

Ie., it might take 15 hours to get your 6000 knights to a city. Or it will take 4 hours to get your 900 merchants there with 300k of each resource, which will allow your city to build 6000 knights in 20 days since it has a level 2 stable. During that time you can slowly build your stable up, but that is a slow process.

See the point here? The need to build your city is the balancing factor for long distance combat. If you could just send your ponies to your new city and let that city control them, then there would be no point to building up that newly conquered city. You could simply feed it and keep rampaging through enemy lines.

That completely shifts the balance of power, and makes distances a non-issue.