Please, disable the possibility of sent back nature troops

Hi zatarra ,

Thanks for your suggestion

I can give you an example explaining why we have this option:

If you have animals in your village and you also have an artifact, you could want your ally to come and get it (for X or Y reason). Before this happens, you would send back your animals to avoid losing troops.

I understand your frustration if you make the mistake you've described but canceling this option would lead to new types of frustration.

I hope this answers your question.

Have a nice day

If you could revert reinforcements in 90 seconds window as attacks it would be nice and it would solve this issue. I would also love if you could revert merchants.

lopik wrote:

If you could revert reinforcements in 90 seconds window as attacks it would be nice and it would solve this issue.

ok, I could bring this up.

lopik wrote:

I would also love if you could revert merchants.

This has been shared and officially answered recently:

"This would give you an option to "save" resources when under attack, send them out and then cancel to get them back."

What if nature troops could hide from attacks the way that heroes can?

u and ur cave of furries crunch

i will never understand

wats next, the rats all run while the tigers stay and fight?

btw,

I think this is a silly idea

sometimes u acidently capture some elephants and then find out that u have to destroy your palace, it would be a tradgedy to see this rule pass, it would eventually mean at some point that i would be forced into slaughtering more animals than nessicerry, not that im bothered about the creatures, its just it would cost me more troops and since i already wasted the money on the gold Id be twice upset

zatarra wrote:

well, I didn't knew about that reazon for sending animals back to home, is not that I really care, but a person make a sugestion and receive a lot of negative valuations, I don't know why this kind of games have so much trols making coments and giving negative points, come on trolls, you can give negative poitns to this coment too as well jaja.

I think the dislikes are because some members don't agree with the proposal, rather than just trolling.

Every opinions and suggestion have value, this thread likely helped others, so thanks for sharing

Have a nice weekend

zatarra wrote:

@ThomasGB It woulod be convenient to disable that option for siters, because cages are axpensive, and thath option in the situations which are convenient, I think it should be dobe only by the account owner, I played with sitters wich I didn't played before, because I in an new server, and I feel insecure about sitters making that possibility, I have issues with some sitters before, despíte they never did to me something on target like that to make damage, I'd rather they can't send back nature troops despite they are able to send troops in the configuration of sitter.

Hi zatarra

I'll bring this up.

But overall, you should only give access to your account to sitters you trust.

brothers

i think it is wise to decide the city for the zoo well,

make sure to take care of the animals well, and choose a city with a lot of potential for you

prior to building the zoo

make sure that you will not need to attack the city, make sure to build trade stations and troop building facilities inside of the city, so that your zoo can stay alive

so long as you do this, you will be free from the plauge of inverting cages

zatarra wrote:

@ThomasGB It woulod be convenient to disable that option for siters, because cages are axpensive, and thath option in the situations which are convenient, I think it should be dobe only by the account owner, I played with sitters wich I didn't played before, because I in an new server, and I feel insecure about sitters making that possibility, I have issues with some sitters before, despíte they never did to me something on target like that to make damage, I'd rather they can't send back nature troops despite they are able to send troops in the configuration of sitter.

I've done it to self chief or let a friend chief a village.