If you have played games like SimCity or other city-building RTS, time is really a challenge and most of the construction will require you to patiently wait. If necessary, save it for a later date to revisit. IMHO this idea may very well come back to haunt us all. Why are we considering to take a step forward, only to take another step back? With this in mind, let's continue on for a while, testing a new merge and the G'Wars and see how it plays out. This idea now, has the exact opposite effect. Both of these issues, are mainly to deal with allowing more combat opportunities to those who so desire. Namely, Neighborhood Merge and Guild Wars.
That's silly.Ĭurrently, the FoE gaming community is dealing with two other issues that take precident over this idea. I'm not going to put out a viable defensive army, if I am unable to attack due to lack of resources. Then what? Shall I wait for replentishment? I certainily hope the people in my 'hoods enjoy fighting it out with Butch and Sundance - The Amazing Spearthrowers, because that's the only way I can slow down their progression. In my cities have enough resources for maybe 200 battles, then my treasuries are empty. Has any non-GB's set down and calculated exactly how many resources/coins they are able to collect in a gaming session? Play 10 solid hours collect 40K? 60K? (maybe)? Not nearly enough for sustaing any type of a warlike position. This idea supports only the GB's (again!). The costs of battle are already there (as pointed out by other posters), in buildings (all types - resedential, resources, happiness and production), training deleted units and time lost in training those units (espiecially when four lost units go to a single barracks).
This one needs to die a very quick death.
0 kommentar(er)
