Forum: empire-en
Board: [590] Ideas, Suggestions & Feedback
Topic: [364657] Choosing what troops go on the wall.
[-364657]
CheekyBuilder (GB1) [GB1]
:: June 1, 2019, 6:36 p.m.
The title kind of explains it.
An example in which this would be helpful is with the nomad Khan attacks in which I would rather use coin troops on the wall to defend the attack and not waste ruby defenders.
Another example is with Veteran Swordmen:
As we can see Veteran Swordsmen have a ranged defensive strength of 72. In defence you can go full melee on the wall with limes to defend against a well tooled ranged attack. The issue is that melee troops have a low ranged defence stat compared to ranged troops.
We can see here that Veteran Swordsmen have a higher ranged defence stat but the problem is that they are not prioritsed on the wall in defence as the sentinels have a higher melee strength and as these troops are classified as melee the higher the melee stat the higher on the priority list it therefore is.
My proposal is that we have an option to manually place troops on the wall so therefore we can use troops such as Veteran Swordsmen or coin defenders in situations in which they are better suited for their purpose.
GGS probably won't ever read this but it is an idea that would help some players.
An example in which this would be helpful is with the nomad Khan attacks in which I would rather use coin troops on the wall to defend the attack and not waste ruby defenders.
Another example is with Veteran Swordmen:
As we can see Veteran Swordsmen have a ranged defensive strength of 72. In defence you can go full melee on the wall with limes to defend against a well tooled ranged attack. The issue is that melee troops have a low ranged defence stat compared to ranged troops.
We can see here that Veteran Swordsmen have a higher ranged defence stat but the problem is that they are not prioritsed on the wall in defence as the sentinels have a higher melee strength and as these troops are classified as melee the higher the melee stat the higher on the priority list it therefore is.
My proposal is that we have an option to manually place troops on the wall so therefore we can use troops such as Veteran Swordsmen or coin defenders in situations in which they are better suited for their purpose.
GGS probably won't ever read this but it is an idea that would help some players.
[5054279]
Wasso (INT3) [INT3]
:: June 2, 2019, 5:31 p.m.
FULLY SUPPORT and AGREE!!!
The Players should be able to decide who gets placed on the wall. If GGS still wants to "help" players pick , they can put the Auto-Fill for Defense into the mix, similar as what they do for attacks. BUT, the Players should be able to have FULL control over their own destiny.
This probably will never happen, due to GGS' version of "fairness"...…..
The Players should be able to decide who gets placed on the wall. If GGS still wants to "help" players pick , they can put the Auto-Fill for Defense into the mix, similar as what they do for attacks. BUT, the Players should be able to have FULL control over their own destiny.
This probably will never happen, due to GGS' version of "fairness"...…..
[5054377]
CheekyBuilder (GB1) [GB1]
:: June 3, 2019, 11:50 a.m.
An auto fill idea just like attacking is actually not too bad of an idea or maybe a selection to either have an automatic defence setup (like it already is) but then also a manual setting so we can choose what goes on the wall.Wasso (INT3) said:FULLY SUPPORT and AGREE!!!
The Players should be able to decide who gets placed on the wall. If GGS still wants to "help" players pick , they can put the Auto-Fill for Defense into the mix, similar as what they do for attacks. BUT, the Players should be able to have FULL control over their own destiny.
This probably will never happen, due to GGS' version of "fairness"...…..
An idea like this is simple to implement and it really does benefit players.
[5054457]
Emattosalves (BR1) [BR1]
:: June 3, 2019, 7:41 p.m.
i agree with the ideia too
[5054603]
CheekyBuilder (GB1) [GB1]
:: June 4, 2019, 2:44 p.m.
Maybe if there is enough interest this might get implemented.Emattosalves (BR1) said:i agree with the ideia too