My guess is yes, but only temporarily.

well it didn't take it during the war or we'd have won an hour earlier :P

Then it doesn't. :D

That's interesting but I think I'm okay with it. :P

The acres aren't lost so I guess that's why it doesn't count :P
Could have asked me and I might have told you it wouldn't work to win the war ;)

Lessons learned the hard way are always the ones never forgotten.

I recently got BC´d by an enemy tribe 175% of my size, and he destroyed more than 14% of my total constructed buildings, and killed 5% of my total theives. That seems alot considering the size difference, especially out of war. Or what do you guys think?

BC destroys dependent on total amount of BC-destroyable buildings.

So those percentages are meaningless :P

I agree with Ktuttekukk.......I said before, if there is a penalty for T/M in size difference, so should there be one for attackers as this is rediculous.

i'd have to agree with Krutte and DW here; imposing a penalty for op'ing a much larger tribe that's been BCing you for a day or two without any penalty is somewhat retarded. attackers are powerful enough as it is.

there IS a penalty for attackers, for EVERY SINGLE ATTACK besides BC, just wanted to point that out. BC is only there for crippling T/M and only really useful in war, i think its fine as it is, if attackers got a penalty on damage for BCing lower, a large tribe would have literally no real way of helping with targets outside its range.

~aqua

then he should not grow too much bigger then the rest of his alliance......they keep talking about team effort but that only seems to apply when they are talking T/M?

“team effort” and synchronized land mass are two entirely separate things.

even if everyone starts the same time and grows together, people die and end up at different sizes and different ages... its easier for all mages to pick up ML 20 because size doesnt matter much there (beyond being over 2k acres) whereas all the attackers in an alliance being within same attack range would be extremely difficult to manage at all times.. anytime someone died the rest would have to reset or pause and wait.... its just not practical.

~aqua

that is what we do and it works :P

and you're really really wrong about BC only being good in wars aqua. I lose dpa when i get BCed since my thieves are *part* of my defence, and the same is true for *every* race that relies heavily on thievery. getting BCed into oblivion by tribes up to 10x your own size and not being able to retaliate in any way really sucks, just ask WH.

hmm, i recall referring to building damage, since if they put a penalty on its damage, it would still kill the same number of troops most likely. if i raze a target out of my range, it kills less buildings, but the same troop loss.. so even if they did add a penalty like you want, i still imagine you'd lose a ton of thieves.

where did you refer to building damage? i might be blind, but i don't see it anywhere.

so don't add a “penalty”, add a failrate. make the much larger tribes bounce 50% of the time if they BC a much smaller tribe, and keep the 2hr waiting time, making the whole bounce time 4hrs. that'd make a 15k tribe think twice about BCing a 4-5k arce tribe.

this is already true for T/M, why should attackers have it any other way?

A failrate on attacks? Ouch. :P

Yeah, I'd rather have a penalty on damage.

well, we have failrate on ops, why not attacks?

come to think of it, don't we have penalty AND failrate on T/M'ing much smaller/larger tribes?

yes, T/M are screwed twice!!!

I think reducing the BC damage is the best way to go. It's kinda ridiculous that a 20k tribe can hit anyone in the game and automatically destroy all their guilds and HOs, as well as some academies

penalty AND failrate kkplzthnx, attackers are better growers than explorers already, letting them kill(ed. raid) or cripple(ed. BC) the (often) smaller explorers without penalty or failrate while the explorer gets both when s/he tries to retal.. surely you see this is messed up

T/Ms have failrates because they can do a lot of stuff at once; the attacker does one attack. This can be strength and a weakness, depending on luck and other circumstances.

That said, a penalty to damage seems like a good idea to me.

there IS a failrate on attacks. its called sending less than enough troops. making it fail x% of the time on top of that would be ridiculous. not to mention your troops aren't going to charge through the opponents lands and just FORGET to burn buildings while they are there... not is a massively larger army, when sent on a BC, going to see a smaller tribe and be like “yaknow, lets just not hit it today” having a penalty makes sense if absolutely needed, but its already nerfed as it is.... if a 6k person BC's a 2k person, he will do normal building losses as if he was a 2k person hitting a 2k person. whereas if a 6k caster does a ton of spells on a 2k tribe, more than likely they will be able to do a ton more damage than one BC across 6 turns of casting.

and BC's primary effect is its anti T/M capabilities, not its troop kills, I didn't think I had to specify that when I said damage that I actually meant DAMAGE and not troops.

~aqua