Post 30 Jul 2013, 16:40 by WollongongWolf
I still don't see how a camper should be able to outfeed his troops, as whatever happens, at the end of pt, he still needs an army, and have towers (I haven't seen anyone being strong with camping without towers), and in order for this idea to improve camping (according to the believes I read here) he needs to have a good feeding industry as well. If someone is really camping, you can at least surround him so he has no way to expand his town, thus barely a way to improve his pt army, while the aggressor has map control and can use offensive towering (if enough stone that is, but that's again map-dependant) to gain more land for creating food (or wood/weapons or whatever you want). Expanding this village (and if it gets huge, perhaps do consider a second storehouse near the battlefield for food) (which makes me wonder why an aggresor is assumed to have hungry troops) results in a better economy and should snowball in victory.
And yes perhaps it's not a good idea to give recently fed troops a bonus, but the original idea of the hungry troops being weaker sounds good to me. Perhaps weaken them to almost useless (towermeat) at like no food bar left. After pt you basically got 15 minutes to try and do something, attack some towers, catch perhaps some kills (you will force the camper to do at least something mostly by just doing at least something. You also got 15 minutes to create a little back up army, to put on the front line when you feed your pt troops.
Of course some maps got plenty of space, but come on, there are tonnes of different maps, with probably 99% being called bad or imbalanced, you simply can't balance a game for all those maps. As said before, an anti-camp solution for one map might be a disastor for another map.
And perhaps we should also give everyone a big army at the end of pt, because a small army encourages camping...