Please limit Stronghold troops to the level of the receiving base

[Patrick Bardet]

I think that the current Stronghold defensive principle is completely unfair for the lower level age players: how an IA or EA can fight AA troops filled in the Stronghold ?
It is ridiculously imbalanced and undermines the willingness of lower age player to participate to wars.
So, when troops are added in defense for war, their level shall be limited by the level of the base receiving these troops (i.e IA base can receive maximum IA troops and not GA or AA).
To be considered for next update.

 

[Quovatis]

Defensive stronghold troops should be removed from the game entirely. It is clearly a pay to win element and few players want that. At the time it was added because offense was overpowered, but that's not the case now.

 

[Master Contrail Program]

Yep. I was attacking a 135 EA with my 82 GP in the last war. Cruising right along with 4 stars in hand when I kill the stronghold. Lo and behold an additional 60+ undamaged troops come pouring out to stop me in my tracks. Though I suspect the ship has long ago sailed on attracting and retaining new players, things like that don't help. With only four tactics space and at least two of those occupied by a sabo for the tc what is someone supposed to do about that until they get aircraft and/or decoys?

The fact that they let you build a stronghold in bronze age kind of says it all though.

 

[Manifesto]

You just have to pay your dues until you DO get aircraft and/or decoys.
My newly minted IA base has paid it's dues, it never complained.

 

[Festivus]

No. I absolutely love putting troop cards in our iron age sandbags and watching attacks by enlightenment on down fail against them.

 

[Master Contrail Program]

That's fine for me as a longtimer playing his alt. What about Joe Newbie? Correct me if I'm wrong you don't go to war either? So.....your experience is already atypical .

 

[Tsamu]

With all the ways to get troop cards without paying for them, I do not think any change is necessary. I do support the 0SH initiative though, and as soon as I get my act together my alliance will join.

 

[Patrick Bardet]

Everybody can use troops cards, but an IA and EA cannot use AA troop cards on offense but can face such high troop cards on defense, which does not make sense. yes, troop cards can be used but the level should be limited to the base level. In the town center, you can fill with AA troops ok but you can sabotage and it is limited to 27 or less troops, with stronghold you can have much more troops loaded.

 

[Manifesto]

I have played wars in the past so I am familiar with the mechanics.
However, my lack of wars hasn't affected common sense. In real life, stronger nations are always helping their less developed allies. Some might say this is wrong but it's reality.
Did Romania tell Hitler ''thanks, but no thanks, when he gave them better tanks?

 

[Tower]

Defensive SH troops should be removed all together. Offensive SH troops should be reduced to at least 2, and the ones that are really over powered such as the elephants and other should be nerfed.

 

[Pepyto]

personally i am against any kind of SH limitation in war. It's a legit part of war strategy, same as sandbagging.
only problem i have is game lag when SH deploy more then 100 troops in one second, so in next 3-4 seconds i don't have any control of battle, and sometimes can't counter them properly.

 

[yemen]

The game cannot handle all the offensive and defensive troops available in atomic without some lag on even a reasonably high end year old android device (Galaxy S7). Add in decoys, and it gets awful. From a purely pragmatic perspective, extra troops on defense is a terrible idea.

0SH is at least a start at an answer to the PTW mess this game has become. Since the players can't easily enforce more fine grained rules (like no cards that cost $), this is an alternative.

If you could check a box on war search that said no troop cards (offense or defense) allowed, and then only matched alliances who made the same choice and the game enforced the rule, would you?

I know we would, and I would guess the majority. Even if there were a glory penalty, we would check it. Don't care about glory, just fun and fair wars. We would also check it for no event buildings in war - feel free to use them in MP, but force them not to show up on your war base. Most aren't that big a deal, but the existence of Bazooka Towers and EA stables is so PTW that I would just choose to eliminate all of them.

 

[Master Contrail Program]

World War 2 didn't depend on an influx of new nations coming in to replace other nations who moved on to other wars. Again, it's not about us longtimers and our myriad alts. Between the time of upgrades, sanbagging, stuffed strongholds and other issues why would somebody starting from square one even bother with this game? Much less recommend it to others?

 

[Master Contrail Program]

This is the simplest and most easily implemented solution. Realistically most alliance will never get near the leaderboard and only war for fun and camaraderie. So let people have options.

Of course such an elegant solution is likely not even a blip on the infamous Nexon ''radar''.

 

[Manifesto]

What exactly are you commenting on, the topic title of stronger troops for lower nations, which was my comment?
Or are you commenting about something different now, influx of new players?
Don't change the subject when your argument loses momentum.