Land as Aid

Trogdor 22 · February 16, 2004, 02:14:38 PM

Why cant I send land as aid? I think it would make the game alot more interesting.

Ereptor · February 16, 2004, 02:43:40 PM

What a great idea. I think though if you gave land as aid you would have to give a certain percent of your reasources also. Like if you wanted to give someone some land you should give them money, food, workers and an army to support it. That would have to be a must.

Retto · February 16, 2004, 02:54:57 PM

Why would it have to be a must? You can give people tons of troops without the food or money to support them. That's more dangerous to your economy than just a bit more land.

Anyway, if it were like that, then instead of attacking you, people would go around, attack you to your limit, then threaten to kill you if you don't give them X Acres.

Trogdor 22 · February 16, 2004, 03:15:19 PM

Quote from: RettoWhy would it have to be a must? You can give people tons of troops without the food or money to support them. That's more dangerous to your economy than just a bit more land.

Anyway, if it were like that, then instead of attacking you, people would go around, attack you to your limit, then threaten to kill you if you don't give them X Acres.

Well, how about being able to share land with your clan members only?

Lereac · February 16, 2004, 03:31:18 PM

I think that sending leaders as aid would be nice...

The Weasel Liberation Mov · February 16, 2004, 03:49:32 PM

Sending leaders might be kinda stupid, because there is the max leader/hut ratio. Also, this would allow for a group to come along, pour all their leaders into one person, and then that person could murder or poison the kablooie out of someone.

wolf bite · February 16, 2004, 04:34:08 PM

*thinks of sending land to my enemy so that I can mess up his leader ratio, murder his army, and take all his money, then use my ratio to take back my land*

Wolf Bite

Juska · February 16, 2004, 04:47:17 PM

*Was gonna post same thing as wolf bite* Land as aid is a baddd thing, same as leaders.

Gen. Volkov · February 16, 2004, 06:47:53 PM

Hehe... *Would do the same thing, but would put all land gained in huts, and have clan send leaders until he lost some from to many per hut*

Ereptor · February 16, 2004, 09:49:28 PM

Quote from: RettoWhy would it have to be a must? You can give people tons of troops without the food or money to support them. That's more dangerous to your economy than just a bit more land.

Anyway, if it were like that, then instead of attacking you, people would go around, attack you to your limit, then threaten to kill you if you don't give them X Acres.

Why are you guys so scared of intimidation tactics? I mean if you are creating a game that makes it hard to use those tactics you are not being fair to your players. Anyway i just thought that giving land is a primary reasource so you might have to have a penalty for doing that which would be food money or troops or something.

The Weasel Liberation Mov · February 16, 2004, 10:29:36 PM

What wolf said makes a lot of sense. While Leader-Loot (Leader-Goldmine, actually) should be weakened as a viable strat, leaders themselves should not become useless like that.