Chaos and troop movement

[TheWolfWarrior]

Chaos keeps the game balanced and allows newly captured cities time to grow. What would you recommend otherwise?

[Brunkis]

I believe there should be a set number of hours given to a newly conquered city just as with beginners protection. Maybe 24 hours that's enough time to get support for your new city but not so much that you can build a massive army. It will help crowns of guild discover who are team players and who are not so they can make a decision whether to keep someone in guild or kick them to make room for a real team player, thus flushing selfish players out and forcing them to either change and be team players or die alone. I believe chaos is a detriment to the game and takes the fun out of it. I'm a military person and a state police officer and just as with enemies or criminals when the fight goes down let the better man win. Chaos is like having a "time out" in war and is that really realistic. I believe this game would be best played the more realistic it is. And for all of you that say beginners protection is not realistic I disagree because part of war/policing is treating your enemy/criminal fairly and not being able to attack a defenseless/unarmed city/person is fair. So that's why I believe chaos should be deleted from the game. It's also like truce a truce is an agreement between 2 fighting entities to stop the attacks in each other. In this game it's one side saying "time out" again. I believe truce is good but both parties have to agree and if they do then there should be a lock on attacking each other or anyone from one another's guild. If one side says Novato truce then you better either get help, use excellent diplomacy or pray you can outlast other side. That's how it is done in real life. Well that's my opinion, please feel free to respond to me in my email on your thoughts. Hope to see these changes implemented in the game I feel you'll be surprised how many people will like the more realistic game.

[Brunkis]

So to come up with a solution for the chaos due to people using it for other than it was designed for and that's preventing overload and causing the game to crash. I think that if someone enters chaos its 99% so they can prevent from being conquered, because I don't know if at anytime someone actually ever sends the high number of attacks at one city. It's usually someone drops themselves from a guild and then someone from their "old" guild acts like they are attacking but sends the right amount of 1 ram attack at the city from the farthest city possible to give them as much time as they can to recover. That to me is not strategic and has no place in this game. So I propose this, if you cause chaos you automatically lose 25 loyalty points due to the fact that things are in disarray and people in your city are not as happy or feel as safe (if your loyalty drops to 0 then you lose your city) this stops people from causing chaos to prevent take over. I also propose that your resources grow at half of what they do per hour. Also I propose that the troops in the city being attacked lose some of their effectiveness (attack and defense) drop either a percentage or by a number again due to city being in disarray. I hope these ideas get to right people and they are implemented, I believe they are fair and prevents people from abusing the system.

[Austin]

I disagree with your view that chaos is bad or unrealistic. And I welcome any argument. In my opinion, chaos is like a defensive blockade. I see this happening a lot in real life military situations. I had a 20,000 point city attacked by a player with 200,000+ points. My guild first sent troop support and we fought off wave after wave of assaults of 4,000 and 5,000 troops each, plus scholars. After losing 3 scholars, (1 got through), the attacks stopped; but then, started up again. After six hours of assaults, the guild employed chaos. How many times, in real world conflict, have we seen super powers send massive naval power, and air support, to prevent further attacks on a small ally? This allows them the opportunity to receive relief aid, rebuild there inferstructure, and recover from the onslaught of a bully. Chaos allowed me a respit that was dearly needed. You propose as an alternative, to let the little guys fight it out against foes ten times ther size. I don't think so. I suppose you think that a guild should only be allowed to send troop support. Again I disagree. Not only were all of my troops wiped out, but my guild members lost thousands of troops before using chaos. In a " realistic" military conflict, if you can prevent the loss of troops,(your own or your ally's), by a defensive blockade and massive show of force, that's the option that any would chose. If you want the game to be more realistic, how about sanctions against players who attack city's less than 1/10th there size? And no, the reduced morale of the attacking giant does not balance things out. Reducing the morale of 3,000 knights and 3,000 guards attacking 800 lancers and 800 sentrys, doesn't amount to squat. Without protections like chaos, this game would be ruled only by those who land in their world first, an new players would never have a prayer. Your comments?

[Nikhil21]

Seriously? How can you call chaos a massive show of force? It slows down the game and is not at all necessary. If you want strategies to defend yourself against other players, they are many like getting your troops in between their scholars, decreasing your own loyalty and then taking your village back by surprise. Chaos is totally unnessecary.

[W venable]

I agree with Austin it is actually realistic and although chaos isn't perfect it is needed

[Rats]

i think that the solution to this problem should put way more emphasis on useing your troops to defend in stead of relying on chaos. I agree that the purpose of is to prevent overload of the game. So this solution should make chaos obsolete but if it is ever done is still there to prevent the over load

how about we penalise people who try to put cities in chaos. like say penalise someone if they get the chaos message or penalise them if they send 10-15 attacks to one city from another single city. if people get penalised this way then they will be more3 reluctant to provide chaos to others. Also i would say boost the number of attacks allowed on one city from 40 to 50. my point is we have to put troops into the game more. i have been playing since world 27 and have seen people not put any troops into cities but just guard them with chaos.

maybe we could lower the number of commanders a city has so it would be just that much harder for a person to puit a lot oif cities in chaos. plus the fact that if there was not much chaos going on then people wouldnt need so many atatcks from a single city too. i cant rememeber the last time i sent 10-15 real attacks or even dummies from a single one of my cities. all i know is this game would be al ot more fun if people use their troops more!