All this because you did not bother to learn the way the game works before you chiefed your own hammer.
Losing all your troops from that village makes more sense than anything else. If anything, troops from a chiefed village should be taken over by the player who chiefed the village.
All this because you did not bother to learn the way the game works before you chiefed your own hammer.
Wow, you guys seem to be so focused on the argument that everyone is whining about their personal loss when they are suggesting a change. Perfect attitude.
@world champion
Why would they? The troops are under your command, in your city, you feed them, why would they defect to another general if their general was still commanding them?
Because you lost the village, which means everyone in the village lost their faith in you, so they should go to the new owner. No matter where they have been. You can make a case for any change. Fact is, you lose your village, you lose your troops. It´s perfectly balanced and no need to mass open threads like it´s your new hobby.
Literally no one else wants this change.
So basically, because you don't like something in the game, everyone else has to entertain your idea of changing it.
So you want TG to implement something no one wants, which in turn would force a complete re-balance of the game (as people have pointed out, the "feature" that you're requesting, would completely break the game), and even when "balanced" it would probably still be completely broken... And taking away one of the most exciting features of the game, that no one except you wants removed - chiefing or 0'ing large hammers/WWKs - which usually involves some of the most complex/organized/creative actions on a server.
I am completely open to new suggestions in general.. But when it's a weird personal obsession, that no one else agrees with.. Maybe just back down? lol..
