| Opinions Needed Liberate |
I am teaching some new players about the game, and I want to ask about liberate option when you reach an enemy city. Most people just say "liberate" at all times, if the option is there, just do it no matter what. That is what I usually do as well, prevents any possible arguments and people getting upset over not returning cities to previous owners.
This is all good when the core gets lost and your first cities get taken, you must liberate so people don't die, but what I wanted to ask is when the kingdom is attacking and taking enemy cities. The situation we had this era is, we had people go to enemies, take cities, gain war spoils, push further but then they got bounced back to the original core and were not able to keep the cities.
Second wave of attacks comes, and some of the people did not take part in the first attack, so when they reach those enemy cities in the front lines, they always get liberate options. Since those cities we took were taken back right away, should we really liberate those cities, or just take them? If we would liberate cities, then second wave people would not get any spoils at all. But then again, people in the first attack put pressure on the enemy giving time to second wave people to get ready and farm.
But then again, who determines how long city has to be kept in control before we reach to the conclusion that the city must be liberated? What if the people in first attack used Naz scouts, just taking cities and losing the cities right away when the enemy comes online... Is it the leader who says liberate or not? What if there is a liberate option but second wave people face 400k troops in the city, should they liberate or take the city due to the fight they needed to do to get the city?
Thoughts please.
|
If it was me I wouldnt return war spoils unless that war has finished or if I think the player deserves in on what they did for the war and what their current situation is. For example (As you said in your post), You're kingdom A. You attack Kingdom B. You get pushed back. Then different players push and they get to the cities previously held. I say these are fair game. If you continue on and Kingdom C attacks your war spoils after Kingdom B is dead. Then I say you should liberate.
If you believe the attacking from the players that pushed originally deserve it then go for it but you shouldn't go off at the player for not returning. Its selfish and a game. Theres also a morale bonus when you return across all cities so sometimes it could be beneficial for you to return every 2nd city to prevent revolting.
|
doesn't matter, you will get pushed back again....bwahahahahahahah :P
|
My personal policy is to always go for the liberate if it's available. That said, I think that it's reasonable not to liberate sometimes under certain conditions if both parties are okay with it and it helps the team win. My wall of text is actually the shortest in this thread but I think it gets the point across.
The majority of the time if the liberate option is available it's better for all parties involved than capture for various reasons, but sometimes you run into situations where a Halfling who fought OOP doesnt want their cities back anyways and a lategame Elf with Archmages needs to convert a city into a forward armory or something like that in which case it's much better for all parties involved not to liberate and to capture instead.
|
| [Top] Pages: 1 |
