It is possible to render a castle useless without losing a single battle.


    By catapulting the storehouse and destroying enough building sites, a castle becomes irreparably damaged. The building sites can no longer be repaired, because the supplies are too low to cover the repair costs. There are no longer enough building sites available to build the storage facility, because they are all broken. The castle is useless.


    The catapults damage the buildings, even if the battle is lost. You can make the attacker lose troops, but you cannot prevent the damage.


    Is it possible to make the last levels of the storehouse catapult-proof? So that we always have the maximum 3 x 10,000 resources we need to repair the building sites?


    Another idea is to allow repairs from the hiding place. This has room for 20,000 of each resource at level 0 and can be slowly filled from a level 0 supply room (2,000 each). This allows the building sites to be restored very slowly.

    This tactic of catapult attacks remains a good strategy, but the attacked player gets the chance to restore his castles after a while. I think this is better for the game: a castle that has been conquered can be recaptured and a castle that has been catapulted to pieces should be repairable.

    #####


    Es ist möglich, eine Burg unbrauchbar zu machen, ohne eine einzige Schlacht zu verlieren.


    Durch mit Katapulte die Speicher zu Zerstören und auch genügend Bauplätzen kaput zu machen, wird eine Burg irreparabel beschädigt. Die Bauplätze können nicht mehr repariert werden, da die Vorräte zu niedrig sind, um die Reparaturkosten zu decken. Es stehen nicht mehr genügend Bauplätze zur Verfügung, um das Lagerhaus zu bauen, da sie alle kaputt sind. Die Burg ist unbrauchbar.


    Die Katapulte beschädigen die Gebäude, auch wenn die Schlacht verloren ist. Man kann dem Angreifer Truppenverluste zufügen, aber den Schaden nicht verhindern.


    Ist es möglich, die letzten levels des Speicher katapultsicher zu machen? Damit wir immer die maximal 3 x 10.000 Ressourcen haben, die wir brauchen, um die Bauplätze zu reparieren?


    Eine andere Idee ist, Reparaturen aus dem Versteck zu ermöglichen. Dieses bietet auf Level 0 Platz für 20.000 jeder Ressource und kann langsam aus einem Level 0 Speicher (je 2.000) aufgefüllt werden. Dadurch können die Bauplätze sehr langsam wiederhergestellt werden.


    Diese Taktik der Katapultangriffe bleibt eine gute Strategie, aber der angegriffene Spieler erhält nach einer Weile die Chance, seine Burgen wiederherzustellen. Ich denke, das ist besser für das Spiel: Eine eroberte Burg kann zurückerobert werden und eine in Stücke katapultierte Burg sollte reparierbar sein.

    I don't understand why this idea now, when this has always been this way and known by everyone and now this suggestion makes even less sense, given that now you have many strategic options such as the plots that can be acquired with amber and expand your plots for example or specialize the castles with the appropriate buildings, a well developed castle is very complicated to destroy levels with catapults; also you can improve the defense with a lot of bonuses that are already established. You can not always change things when they do not favor me and assume that when one makes the decision to attack a player without any reason, nor provocation by him, he must assume the consequences of his actions and not that another now changes the dynamics of the game because it does not suit me or like it.

    Quote from mencey

    I don't understand why this idea now, when this has always been this way and known by everyone and now this suggestion makes even less sense, given that now you have many strategic options such as the plots that can be acquired with amber and expand your plots for example or specialize the castles with the appropriate buildings, a well developed castle is very complicated to destroy levels with catapults; also you can improve the defense with a lot of bonuses that are already established. You can not always change things when they do not favor me and assume that when one makes the decision to attack a player without any reason, nor provocation by him, he must assume the consequences of his actions and not that another now changes the dynamics of the game because it does not suit me or like it.

    i like that :thumbup:


    :love: :love: :love:

    Quote from mencey

    I don't understand why this idea now, when this has always been this way

    As far as I know, it never was an issue before, for no alliance / player. So the reason it comes up now, is because it is the first times it is an issue.

    Unless someone else experienced this, but decided to not tell anyone.

    Quote from mencey

    a well developed castle is very complicated to destroy levels with catapults

    We all know how long it takes (without spending a month's salary in gold) to build up a castle. In the last 10(ish) years it is known to anyone that we don't want to kick out players from this game. Therefor, I don't see any reason to just demolish a (developed) castle.

    Ofcourse, sometimes you want to demolish living or even construction office and/or wall of course if you want to capture a castle.

    But destroy a developed castle, just to destroy doesn't make sense for anyone.


    Quote from mencey

    You can not always change things when they do not favor me and assume that when one makes the decision to attack a player without any reason, nor provocation by him, he must assume the consequences of his actions and not that another now changes the dynamics of the game because it does not suit me or like it.

    Of course you can not always change things when they are not in your own favor.

    But let's be fair...

    - The "military strength attack restrictions" weren't in my/our favor, but got installed.

    - The capitulation option wasn't really in my/our favor, but got installed.

    - The ambercastles, which can not be taken, are not in my/our favor, but got installed.


    All during war, to avoid players losing too much. And of course, in the future we might benefit from these options ourselves.

    Like in the future, you might benefit a new change in the game yourself too.


    It does make sense to me, to be able to have the option to repair damaged construction sites from your hiding place.

    Demolishing the sites can still make sense... as it would be an option to increase the "repair time" by a few hours.

    With 100 damaged levels and a small hiding, you will be able to repair only 2 sites, then have to fill your hiding again (from a storage with only 2000 resources, which will take some time)

    The attacker would still have the advantage that for a few hours these sites would need to be repaired, so no direct-building a wall in example.

    Quote from LastSamurai

    Por supuesto, a veces desea demoler la vivienda o incluso la oficina de construcción y/o la pared, por supuesto, si desea capturar un castillo.

    Pero destruir un castillo desarrollado, solo destruir no tiene sentido para nadie.

    Let's see if I understand you, my friend, in your opinion, and as a justification for your point of view, you mention that for you it is logical that catas are used to destroy the house, the wall to facilitate the conquest so that the defender cannot level up anything, the wall mainly to be able to defend his castle and have a chance to keep it, because the only option left is to demolish it, and you do not care that this player has a developed castle and that he has to demolish it because if not he loses it, this is fine for you, regardless of the fact that the aggressor could surpass him, for example, in military power almost three times, and you consider that it is wrong that the attacked with less potential can minimize a threat from a castle that is close to those of the player who attacks him, eliminating a possible threat to his castle or castles, is this what you mean? Don't you think it could be contradictory? Well, the same, my friend. You may not think this is right, but the other person or people may also think it is illogical that they cannot build walls in their castles to defend themselves because their entire house has been eliminated.


    And as I said, and obviously I am not going to explain it here, there are many options for what you want to change not to happen. Each person plans the construction of their castle. If a player decides to prioritize a series of constructions over others, it is their decision and they must accept it.


    Finally, I want to tell you that if I have understood one of your statements correctly, it is that nobody knew this because they are not as experienced in the game as I interpret you to mean to me in that regard. I want to tell you that this has happened to me and I learned and went to the forum to raise nothing, so that they would change it to my convenience, I assumed it and that's it and I learned the lesson, and I also learned that just because I have more points or military etc, I should not underestimate any player and even less attacking rivals with less potential attacking a castle of approximately 196,522,031 which evidently with that score is not developed at all, even without even going to conquer it, just to destroy for the sake of destroying and relying on their guild despite the fact that it is supposed to be an attack between player to player to have their castles supported, with which it is not one against one but one defending against many, and when they give you the same medicine, pretending here that things are changed.


    I think that's enough on my part, everything has been said and obviously I will not enter into a debate that for me is meaningless and somewhat hypocritical.


    A picture is worth a thousand words. As far as I understand, this is fine for you, but destroying the storage and solar levels is not.

    Edited once, last by mencey ().

    I did not mean to change anything, as it is not concerning me personally.

    I also think that it is good that everyone is able to attack or defend whatever, whenever they want. And of course in a way they want.

    Though, it is my opinion that, if you want to eliminate the threat of an enemy close-by, you should take the castle.

    Nobody is helped with a useless castle and if you think this should be the way.... that's fine too.But please don't crawl back if anyone else adopts to this way of playing Damoria too. It will, for sure, cause players to stop the game in the future (on both "sides"), if all their castles are useless. Even amber-castles aren't safe.


    There are more options then just "demolish" or lose it... because, if you lose it, you are always able to retake it again. This also gives the attacker an option... not to demolish the whole castle, but only demolish buildings that help you to conquer it.


    You are right, everyone builds there own castles and are responsible for that themselves. But you can't deny that over time things have changed.

    15 years ago, a lvl 100 storage was always safe. Nobody had the amount of cata's to destroy a lvl 100 storage. With the amount of troops in the world now, no building is safe (except for the buildings that you can't attack with cata's of course), so it doesn't matter which buildings are being prioritized.


    A lvl 0 house is always possible to build again, so is a storage or construction office, but not if you are unable to because you need a certain level of resources/storage.

    Hi everyone


    Suggestions for improvement, constructive, everything is OK

    As described here, the improvement of the repair of the building sites


    But you can see again, it leads to pointless discussions where nobody wants to move away from their point of view and doesn't even want to think about it


    And - as is always the case, when two people do the same thing, it is by no means the same. Because - some think they are more equal than others


    Greetings

    :thumbsup:

    @ mencey,

    What you did is a brilliant strategic move. Everyone agrees.


    But it is not right that a castle cannot be repaired. Once a castle is captured, it is easier to recapture for the first 14 days, by anyone. It can not even be demolished for a few days.

    I also find it perfectly logical that you can temporarily disable buildings by catapulting them, although I do not try to do that myself, as long as the opponent doesn't start.

    If a player makes the decision to destroy a castle themselves, that is a strategic choice: there are other options.


    But as the game has been going on for years and more troops are added, there will also be more catapults. It is gradually possible to render all of a player's large castles useless. With the 25% battle setting and the ability to repair 50% of the fallen catapults with amber, this is quite possible.

    In the days of the bug troops, players stopped because the living quarters of all their castles were kept at 0 and they could no longer play. This is now possible again but by destroying all construction sites.


    TvT is the strongest alliance now. We can and will prevent this from happening to our players. Maybe this proposal is not in the interest of TVT, but in the interest of the game?
    If reparations are possible from the hidingplace, it will cost lots of time to restore the castles. No problem. It is still a good strategy. It is only temporary and players can recover from it and can keep playing. And that is what we want.
    But even if there is no solution, I cannot forbid this good strategy being used by the tvt players if others do use it. You have to understand that too.

    Do you really want to stop this idea from happening ?

    Edited 2 times, last by Juflo ().

    Like 1

    Ohhhhweeeee , u need all your super power and man power...

    Pleas help me Lord becous a TvT´ler really loves them Kata Boys :evil:


    My papa allways says: "a hard head makes a soft ass"


    ohhhh, wow!!!

    So my ass got to be, Super Super and Extra Soft :D


    8o

    • Official Post

    i dont understand the "hard wording" in this thread ... for me the topic is reasonable and, yes if strategies changes, we should talk about a change.

    For me it makes sense to safe the storage levels...


    in general, damoria has such a small community like you already talked about here in thread - destroying someone out of the game, or even making castles which costs so much time (or money) unusable, isnt the right way in 2025 anymore.

    Yes, i love it, when comunity brings up "defined rules" and that shouldnt be done at all - but, there are players who dont event be part of the community or these rules - so i can understand that someone likes to get rid of this problem and forcing players to use strategies with counter-options.

    Quote from Dschibait

    i dont understand the "hard wording" in this thread ... for me the topic is reasonable and, yes if strategies changes, we should talk about a change.

    For me it makes sense to safe the storage levels...


    in general, damoria has such a small community like you already talked about here in thread - destroying someone out of the game, or even making castles which costs so much time (or money) unusable, isnt the right way in 2025 anymore.

    Yes, i love it, when comunity brings up "defined rules" and that shouldnt be done at all - but, there are players who dont event be part of the community or these rules - so i can understand that someone likes to get rid of this problem and forcing players to use strategies with counter-options.

    We got Dragons and anyway even me went tru lot a pain by Katas

    many times but you never heard me ;(

    playing with the Katas, is allways Dangeroues either way :thumbup:

    sorry aber ich bin mehr Deutsch wie Amy...


    jetzt hat der feind eine Starke Burg von dir erobert Mitten in deinem Zentrum und UT ist schon stark verfügbar.


    Glaubt mir mit Katas runter Bomben ist noch die Klügste und außerdem die Sicherste Option die Dir vielleicht bleibt

    und ich meine nur das sollte gut durchdacht sein 8)

    This topic is not about using catapults. Taking down buildings with catapults is part of the game.

    I started this topic because I think that there should be no permanent damage to Castles. Even if this is slow, the damage should be repairable. By using the resources from the hiding place to repair the building sites, or making some levels of the storage catapultproof, it remains possible to repair the castle.


    Those who want to discuss the use of catapults can create their own topic.

    Quote from Juflo

    This topic is not about using catapults. Taking down buildings with catapults is part of the game.

    I started this topic because I think that there should be no permanent damage to Castles. Even if this is slow, the damage should be repairable. By using the resources from the hiding place to repair the building sites, or making some levels of the storage catapultproof, it remains possible to repair the castle.


    Those who want to discuss the use of catapults can create their own topic.

    Mir ist es wirklich gesagt egal, ich mache oft mit einfach nichts viel und ich stelle mich allem ganz gleich was kommt...ich Spiel einfach mein Spiel 8o

    If i understand the problem correctly, the solution could be to reduce the costs of repairing a slot to 100 each. Then the castle will be unuseful temporary but not forever.


    I think i mentioned in some threads, that i find it kind of strange that you hardly destroy buildings if you attack with 100% and loose, But if you choose less perecent, you can destroy buildings easy even if you loose the fight :) it is an unwanted sideeffect when fight settings have been introduced, but this is the case since 15years 😉

    Quote from EntsafteR

    If i understand the problem correctly, the solution could be to reduce the costs of repairing a slot to 100 each. Then the castle will be unuseful temporary but not forever.


    I think i mentioned in some threads, that i find it kind of strange that you hardly destroy buildings if you attack with 100% and loose, But if you choose less perecent, you can destroy buildings easy even if you loose the fight :) it is an unwanted sideeffect when fight settings have been introduced, but this is the case since 15years 😉

    Glaube das hört sich nicht mal so schlecht an ....Super :love: :love: :love: :love:

    Ist mir trotzdem Peng :D

    One last question on this topic for Dschibait, because I didn't quite understand his post.

    I understand that this new proposal is good for you, and that when you consider it appropriate you will implement it in the game, is that correct?


    If you are so kind and it is not a bother, I would appreciate a specific answer.


    Greetings.

    In addition to this question.
    Please IF you implement this, adjust the time it takes to a repair a site.
    Now it's only 15 minutes or so... this could / should be a few hours at least. Otherwise it doesn't make sense to damage them anymore.

    • Official Post
    Quote from mencey

    One last question on this topic for Dschibait, because I didn't quite understand his post.

    I understand that this new proposal is good for you, and that when you consider it appropriate you will implement it in the game, is that correct?

    no thats not what i wrote in my post - what i wrote is that it is important to keep players in the game also when they lost.

    Thats why we implement amber castles and rebuild bonuses for troops and finally also capitulation.

    all these things LastSamurai isnt in his favor... until he profits from this..


    seeing the "whole" situation is a thing what i can't expect from someone - most cases you have an opponent which damaged you, and where you like to stop to keep this goal to not *uck opponent out of the game? In that situation you dont see that goal anymore. (i dont speak for any player, but this is most of the time the case)


    so here are 2 things brought up to the community - i think this is a good base for a discussion ... coming in 2nd post into the thread with "i dont understant..." makes the whole discussion completly broken / confusing / take your word what you love here - and, after these posts the basic "mood" wasnt on the level to keep players, it was about "hey you got fucked, dont cry" - and thats not the goal (see above) we should all work on.


    for me the solutions (there are several here) are not clearly defined, i see the problem but i dont see the solution and keep damoria like feelings also on destructing buildings. maybe there should be buildings (storage, main building or so) who can't be destroyed, thats what i would like to see, that players keep there accounts and continue playing - for me as an owner, i dont like the whole concept of dealing of ownerships of castles at all - see spaceinvasion, there is anything you reached on your planet also a plus on your whole account history - forever-

    But this is what - i - dont like as an owner, spending money to get players to the game, and 10 attacks later, they leave or lose a big part of progression.


    thats what i like to say here with my post, nothing about solutions or something - for me, and i hope that some of you understand that point of a discussion now, should be open for strategies, they dont really make sense (and im pretty sure this one isnt the last one)