Hello,
that is a good idea. Put players from W2 into surrender = 2x faster production of soldiers. So very strong players from W2 move in with me, make extra soldiers in the surrender and then attack me = end of the game. Really good idea. Then it doesn't matter if my account is deleted during the merger or the enemy. Merger and set your weapon to 12 months, or immediately after the merger many players end the game.

ciao
io penso che l'ottimale sia mantenere la protezione solo sul main castle , come adesso.
anche se ormai il gioco oramai è troppo snaturato.
Era affascinante , rispetto ad altri giochi, la sua rudezza, e la possibilità di crearsi propri mondi , con sistemi di amicizie , alleanze e perchè no anche di tradimenti e voltafaccia.
Questo , a mio parere , rendeva possibile ,nel tempo, conoscere gli altri giocatori e regolarsi meglio nel nostro proprio gioco, compreso il capire come e cosa poter o dover difendere o attaccare.
Ma purtroppo la folle paura di perdere castelli e truppe (o avere più di altri)ha bloccato tutto.
E' un gioco , ma tutti noi , giocatori admin proprietari... abbiamo , per infiniti motivi, contribuito sempre più a costruire fossati invalicabili...
come dicevo, è un gioco e così dovrebbe rimanere... si demolisce, attacca , difende... pensare ad esso come investimento di denaro snatura tutto...
esorto tutti i giocatori a giocare , quindi
e magari insieme a admins e proprietari
ma giocare veramente.
cordialmente
SRT

hi
I think it would be best to keep the protection only on the main castle, as now.
Even if the game is now too distorted.
It was fascinating, compared to other games, its roughness, and the possibility of creating your own worlds, with systems of friendships, alliances and why not also betrayals and turncoats.
This, in my opinion, made it possible, over time, to get to know the other players and better regulate our own game, including understanding how and what we could or should defend or attack.
But unfortunately the crazy fear of losing castles and troops (or having more than others) has blocked everything.
It 'a game, but all of us, players admin owners ... we have, for infinite reasons, contributed more and more to build impassable moats ...
As I said, it's a game and so it should stay ... you demolish, attacks, defends ... think of it as an investment of money distorts everything ...
I urge all players to play, then
and maybe together with admins and owners
but really play.
cordially
SRT

Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

If it were up to me, I would do as in spaceinvasion. I would give more importance to the fleet and avoid losing the castles. It is unfortunate enough to lose your troops like losing castles that take up a lot of time and work. This way you would avoid fewer leaks in the game.
I understand many players do not share this strategy but it is my opinion.

A great.

In general I see well the implementation of the measure, as long as it maintains its objective not to destroy players or force them to leave it and can not be used as accounts camicaces ...

I would only propose that the protection could be a circular protection around your main castle of 100 radius squares for example (or the equivalent of a circumference the size of the continent) and I would propose that it include the baldurs in these proportions (40 normal 10 baldur; 60- 15; 80 -20; for example)...

Futrtie.
In the topic "my conclusions, fusion and important.... " you opened, you complain that some players will get an advantage. Now you are asking for benefits yourself. There are many players who, for various reasons, do not have their secondai castles around their main castle. They couldn't get protection now?

I have difficulty following this thread. The functioning between those who have more (or much more) than the established limit (eg 25) and those who have less or just a few. Some ideas in the german part of the forum but... everything is still very raw.
AA - Empire Size
I've always seen two basic game hypotheses:
1 - Lots of castles, lots of production, lots of troops. More difficult defense;
2 - Fewer castles, less production, less troops. Simpler defense.
Speaking of justice, it seems to me that there will be an unevenness in favor of those who opted for great empires.
BB - Fear of losing account
Anyone who owns 50, 100 or more castles and produces troops is sure to have some fortresses that won't be easy to take overnight. You can lose a lot of castles in a very concerted action but you won't lose them all. The option to capitulate exists. And back to AA.

I can understand a discussion of increasing the number of "unconquerable" castles but limited to 2, 3, 5 nothing more.

Hello

For my part I do not see the interest that the castles which are on the mainland of the main castle is then to protect this limit of 1 point I do not find it interesting

we must not forget that we are in a war game so each player must take responsibility for his account therefore having a lot of castles or points is dangerous, having isolated castles is dangerous is still a lot of other thing

I think that in the history of damoria I was the one who suffered the biggest military operations, I was attacked by the 2 biggest alliances of damoria in a 30-minute slot unheard of in 15 years and I don't did not complain on the forum or anything I suffered is that made me stronger

we must not protect the players too much because otherwise it destroys a war because too many complicated rules

surrender is a very good idea but we must not give more