Nope.
The castle was from a player in my alliance, someone else took the castle (other alliance).
I took the castle back.
Edit: maybe it has something the do with the research?
I did the same simulations with defender having all research at level 0 and at level 20 (max).
The outcome of damage done to the wall doesn't change at all.
While the wall should be 200% stronger at level 20?
Yep, before I send the attacks I always do some test runs in the simulator.
I am 100 certain I 'checked' the contested castle button.
According to these simulations the amount I had send should have been more than enough to take down the wall but it barely had a scratch in it.
Therefore I contacted support to see if something was wrong with my attacks or the simulator.
See print screens bellow.
Display MoreI didn't saw that, because 0815 has started the ticket with you ( so its assigned to him) - basicly i don't even have any reports here anymore, but finally, if this was rly such important for you, you could create a investigation thread here on board to talk with players (and also at least me) about this behavoir.
I didn't see anymore if this was a contested castle or not - but if it was, any of your reports are explained by this.
A contested castle has a not so strong wall at all, that you destroy more wall levels against a contested castle as against a non-contested castle, should be self-explained.
regards
Dschibait
Aber wie ich in meinen Support-Tickets sagte, dann ist der Simulator VÖLLIG falsch.
Laut Simulator hätte ich accessive senden/Widder zweimal, aber sie haben nichts an der Mauer getan.Vielleicht rennt der Simulator also andere Zahlen als der echte Kampf?
When our players fighted against bugtroops, capitulation was not even possible. So just be glad that there are changes. Not all can change at the same time. So addapt to the ones made and keep an eye on the forum so you know about them.
Believe me, we also had our deal of bug troops before the worlds merged.
Let's all be thankful that we are still around 
Take this from the point of view of other players who lost troops like that over two years, who should not get anything now? Because to 95% no more reports exeste.
Of course, there are new changes that act positive or negative on the game. Personally, I prefer to take the castle and bring it back instead of losing troops unnecessarily
Well yea thats what I mean.
If there is no other fix possible for this bug to create troops it should stay that way.
But for me personally it should be that the remaining troops 'flee' the castle and you maybe lose a certain percentage of the extra because they die on the way back or something but you still get some back.
It is logical. If the castle is conquered, foreign support troops will not get food and die. It is logical and completely ok.This rule was already introduced in 2016! 3 years ago! So many wars were waged. And it was okay. It bothers you now because you're at war. Now it has to be changed? Why? Are you special?
Well we could say the same about the capitulation mode.
When our players capitulated and they could not attack it was no problem but the second you capitulate it had to be changed.
Then again, Now it has to be changed? Why? Are you special?
The loss of troops in indeed fair.
It should also stay that way, as the middle ages play is close to authenticity. When a castle was conquered there, all the survivors were enslaved or killed
Well then we should also delete all micro transactions (pay-to-win) because we also didn't have that in the middle ages 
It is hard when you lose 100% of your troops when the castle is conquered but if this is needed to fix the troop bug we should live with it...
Since it seems possible to give individual players different levels of troop speed, wouldn't it be an idea to get some sort of digressive troop/resource speed into the game to help attract those newer players?
I wouldn't like to start playing a game knowing others have a 10-year head start that I am almost unable to overcome without spending thousands of euros?
I won't try to give any numbers or stuff like that (should be calculated by the team), but to me it seems a good idea to give smaller players a faster production of both resources and troops until they reach a certain 'strength'.
This could attract also older players and make it easier for newer players.
One thing that should be looked into is watching out for people making multi accounts to abuse this.
@vanmorris all changes are not good for you. you are always criticizing everything. Nothing suits you. Think about it sometimes before you write something.
when are new changes are I wait just when you give a message in forum
Could be because changes are always in favor of one particular group of players
Sorry that I am worried about the direction the game is going and I am trying to help.
But sure I'll no longer post on the forum then.
Good luck!
@Dschibait
Why not make it so that every day when a player is capitulated some kind of 'check' is run.
The 'hidden' maximum troop number he had before he capitulated is tracked, so it should be easy to say that players who are capitulated get the 2x troops until they reach a certain percentage of their max troop value again? I won't do any suggestions on numbers because I would be Imparitial then.
But this would solve the issue of capitulating to gain more troops.
If this player does reach this number, he gets the normal x1 production.
If he doesn't reach it, too bad for him but he at least gets the x2 troops for the full 6 months
sry but you talk about a fair game but
1. you cant say which amount of troops you have to lose to capitulate
2. you can't even calculate the exact strangth of player who will get a benefit from this or not
How would I supposed to be able to calculate that?
I am not saying you are calculating wrong, all I am trying to do is making sure that you cannot benefit from being capitulated as a bigger player (--> Producing more troops then a normal player when even losing troops first).
The fact that you have to 'loose' castles can be easily tricked by some friends.
I am trying to keep this friendly and help the game forward.
But calling me going stupid really helps!
So... Why am I not impartial?
Some members of my alliance also capitulated?
I could also use these changes to my advantage?
For me this has nothing to do with which players get an advantage and which players don't.
All I am trying to achieve is a fair game for everyone.
I think I am allowed to have my opinion and I am allowed to also express that opinion?
If you have good facts or I see things that are against my opinion I sure do change my opinion.
If you don't want players to express their opinion when they feel something is done wrong then just tell me.
All we can achieve is a better game for all and this has to come with some ups and downs.
Display Moreonly to say this:
without payment:
Time: 100% /2 => 50% Time ... a reduction by 50%
With payment:
Time 40% /2 => 20% Time => a reduction by 20%
That means a player without bonuses will get more benefit from this as a player with pay bonuses. Sure, he can get more, but at least, the last percents bring not such much.
In percentages yes.
But you have to look at the total amount of troops produced per x amount of time, not the percentage
Suggest you have 1 minute and 100% is 10 seconds.
Normal: 60 seconds/10 seconds = 6 troops
Normal capitulated: 60 seconds/ (10 seconds * 0.5) = 12 troops
Payment: 60 seconds / (10 seconds * 0.4) = 15 troops
Payment with capitulation: 60 seconds / (10 seconds * 0.4 *0.5) = 30 troops.
So you still get 2.5x more troops when paying
Display Moreits the double of the amount wich a other player can build ... so basicly its about 6months more than your 6months in capitulation. So yes, if your opponent lost troops and isn't going into capitulation, its so that he hasn't this bonuse, but he can still attack anyone, can farm anyone...
Did you think that the resources to get this troops are grwoing on your trees ?!
basicly i didn't think that we talk on the same level; you think its too much, but you havn't any idea about how many looses is the correct one to get a benefit from this.
in 6month, sure a player could get 15,7mrd - a normal player could get 7,8mrd still with this.
Beside the fact that the capitulating player also lost buildings / castles ... but lets ignore this.
So ca capitulating player has to lose less than this 7,8mrd troops. All players from last days lose much more than this amount.
For example OSTRY lost alone in this battle report here the half of this possible reward:
https://damoria.bitmeup.com/ba…IKUhtD6n6Qn71owcL85R54Lqs
So - we didn't think that anything works what we plan here, we also have adjusted things... but crying (sry but its so) like this, after about 4hours, isnt the right way.
Oh yea sure OSTRY lost those troops there.
It certainly weren't the troops from a multi account that jumped closer to that castle
I am not saying your work is not good but why don't you use the polling system a bit more?
I am not crying, I am trying to help you save the game.
If you see my critics as crying and you can't handle a bit of critics then I will no longer do this.
You can find out what players really want then.
So the real focus is bigger players?
Let's do a calculation.
The bigger players have 25 castles with all productions at level 100.
This creates 700,000 troops in each castle per day or 17,500,000 in all castles.
This for 6 months (about 180 days) is 3,150,000,000 troops.
But if you ad the paying bonuses to this: you create 7,875,000,000 troops in total (x2.5)
Get an extra x2 troops speed in this and you are able to create 15,750,000,000 troops in those 6 months.
Now this is why I think the 2x troops is not justified:
1) Your opponent also lost troops, but maybe a bit less then you? Now by creating this you make it so that the capitulated player comes out of capitulation stronger then his opponent and you want him to take revenge?
2) This only widens the gap between non-paying and paying customers.
3) Right now you want players to sacrifice some of their troops to find out the number of troops you have to lose before being able to capitulate?
Hello,
I am sorry to say but do you know what you are saying?
Quote from DschibaitOf course we want to provide a reconstruction as well as protection. What we do not want is that this feature becomes a must-have, so everyone has to capitulate. The players who lost, still have hard work to get back into the game or rankings - but we want to give you the chance to be an active part again and at the forefront.During a capitulation, the player gets a 2x troop-production acceleration. This acceleration factor decreases by 0.25 with each additional capitulation
Quote from DschibaitDuring a capitulation, the player gets a 2x troop-production acceleration. This acceleration factor decreases by 0.25 with each additional capitulation
So the new meta is going to be sending just the right amount of troops on a suicide mission and then let some of your friends take a few of your castles and then capitulate to create even more troops?
You lost a battle/war and get 6 months to recover, you don't need the extra troop speed!
It is not like your opponent didn't lose any troops at all and...
one part of the military strength is the amount of castles and also the military buildings (stable, wall, troop place etc etc) ...
So, sure, in every calculation you can reduce your strength to be "safe" - and loosing castles in damoria didn't means at all that you "lose" them. But in general, we try to get a system where smaller players are more protected. If we see that there are problems / issues or miss-calculations in your algorithm here, we can and we will adjust them.
For that, you need to explain that case as good (and deep) as possible. Creating a thread and telling "someone losses castles to get a smaller range" isn't the right way - explain it with numbers; if he lost 20% of the strength - i think this is ok - if he lose more than 90% without loosing many troops - its a problem.
Hello Dschibait,
I don't think the problem is losing a lot of castles. I think the problem is when a player demolishes all his castles (until he has 30 left or so) and then builds a lot of really small castles to get a very low military strength. I can't do the numbers since the algorithm isn't known. But could you check the case where a player has a lot of troops and decided to demolish his castles to build a lot of smaller ones? I personally think this should not have a big effect on the players military strength because he didn't build these castle to defend them but just to lower his strength.
You have the right to take part in everything as long as it is not military...
The consequence of capitulation is no military actions.
But seems like there can be no reasoning again.
This was not a problem when our players capitulated but when you decide it, it should be changed?
you KNEW before you capitulated that you could no longer do ANY military actions.
So you have to bear the consequences.
no vanmoris I say that when damoria makes a event that and normal that everyone can participate otherwise it and an injustice for some players and that and a benefit for others while damoria must be neutral with everyone
Quote from Chemillaso damoria find normal that some player is the rights to bonuses and not others ???
the player who has surrendered by force has lost a lot of castles and troops and I find it normal that he can attack the bandit camps for gems to heal their troops
if damoria does not allow attacks on the bandit camps then that means damoria favors some player in damoria and this is not legal, it becomes an injustice, damoria must be neutral and each player must be entitled to the bonus from damoria
Then if there would be a new event with new castles (like Halloween/Easter in the past) capitulated players should also be able to attack those?
And what would happen then if someone takes over such a castle right before the capitulated player does? His attacks continue?
All I am saying is that you choose yourself to capitulate, you knew the consequences (NO military actions the upcoming 6 months).
The capitulation feature is there to help you survive when you had big losses. It is your last savior before being completely destroyed.
