4 or 5 scholars

[Atletico]

My question is: hypothetically, if 5 players attack (from the same guild) a city with 5 scholars (=5 attacks), but with the 4th, the city is taken. Will the 5th scholar recapture the city and scholar 4 will be lost?

[Gilictic]

Yes. You are correct, if the 5th scholar captures the city again, the 4th is lost, and the city goes to the last scholar.

[Harps]

What about if it's one player sending all the attacks? I sent three scholars in three attacks to a city and managed to sneak in amidst someone else's attempt to conquer and got it on the first go. Now it's telling me I have two attacks coming at me... from me. I feel like I can't afford to create any troops or send support until these attacks are finished, is that right?

[Valorgamer]

Yes that's correct

[Dixxie]

Ok, before I go into the whole programming logic of this, can you tell me why it was designed this way?
If I have 5 scholars built up, and want to take a city with a ridonkulous travel time, why would it be designed so that I have to wait and see if I get the city with 4 attacks, -vs- risking the loss of a scholar, if I sent 5?

The whole premis of a scholar is to capture an enemy town. Why would it be set up to capture my own town, if I just took it with the previous attack?
I would think, by default, it would just recognize the city is mine, and have a null effect, and return to the sending city.

[Stark Bledfast]

The cloud of war is foggy.

[Tooltip]

It's an addition level of strategy.

The players and guilds with the best planing and timing have an advantage.

This purposely makes those without planning and timing, at a disadvantage. The time and resources to train and send the scholar are lost. This wastefulness is compounded if a guild sends scholars without coordinating at all.