DeletedUser3390
Guest
You keep blaming the fortress but that wouldn't change anything with three amount of kingdoms there are a small tribe could never beat a tribe that is 5x their size (assuming both sides are near equal in power/activity)
It would probably only make defeat quicker as a tribe wouldn't need to conquer more villages to reach the 80% but instead just dominate with the 70% they have with also would make the game more interesting and less people would quit for the final 10%(lost of tribes get huge in actives as far as I have seen for the final push to the 80% mark which slows it down)
So in my opinion having an endgame with fortresses can only accelerate the biggest winner to win quicker
It would probably only make defeat quicker as a tribe wouldn't need to conquer more villages to reach the 80% but instead just dominate with the 70% they have with also would make the game more interesting and less people would quit for the final 10%(lost of tribes get huge in actives as far as I have seen for the final push to the 80% mark which slows it down)
So in my opinion having an endgame with fortresses can only accelerate the biggest winner to win quicker
If I read correctly shekel says no things about you guys backstabbing he is stating the fact that saying merging is okay because there is no fortress endgame is a weak argument and as I explained above I agree that this is a weak argument(though I understand there are multiple reasons to merge at this stage of the game but when you do so remember you took the easy way out instead of fighting for ages)It is a shame that loyalty means so little to you, and that you would suggest we back stab our ally. It is that way of thinking that has lead to what Chaotikka was talking about. No, we uphold our agreements. For being such a prominent member of the community, I expected a more thought out response.