Aceb wrote:Similar almost to mine, but with different numbers and words.
shubla wrote:Mario_Demorez wrote:Would that not just be soak?
You would need longer time to break the shield, if shield would take less damage per hit when damage is dealt to brickwall, rather than to palisade.
shubla wrote:Result would basically be more brimstone needed.
Mario_Demorez wrote:Aceb wrote:Similar almost to mine, but with different numbers and words.
I’m not quite sure what your idea entails. A quick summary of what I got was that the length or size of the wall scales the size of the shield? If so Larger walls would be build, zig zagging for more length even. Seems easily abusable.
Aceb wrote: I don't hate your idea or anything.
jorb wrote:The running server is the test server.
Mario's goal is to reduce the time required for sieging...or at least remove the requirement for being there start to finish...without making walls pointless and peaceful farmers defenseless. I think he's struck a healthy balance.MagicManICT wrote:Well laid out idea, but I think the main issue people have with raiding is the length of time involved currently. Last major raid I saw was the big NK/HH battle, which, if memory serves, was something like 24 hrs of camping and firing catapults.
Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot], Claude [Bot] and 4 guests