"Campers"

I find the map travel to and from cities to be quite inconsistent as I'm sure most people do.
It takes forever to get anywhere, yet an instant to return.
Having said that, I was thinking about the idea that if we sent troops off to say, occupy a fort or an oasis and win, perhaps we could map travel FROM that point?

On top of this, wouldn't it be great if we could set up army 'camps' on empty map grids during travel?
Instead of traveling hours to war, you could travel the map in increments towards your foe just 'camping' along the way. Also not giving your foe 4 hours notice that you're on your way!
Of course, it couldn't be too easy. Say if you found an enemy camp on the map grid, you could attack them just as you would a city or occupied oasis/fort.

This might get a little messy for most players who love to avoid a war so I wonder if there could be an option to refuse war to a specific player for say, 24 hours by paying them money? Rather than having to pay coins to save your hide all the time, you could pay 20,000 money to force a truce with your enemy.

Ah, this was so much better in my head!
I'll blame it on the ridiculous hour that I'm awake.
Thanks for reading anyway!

Adina

Lol, Im used to first person shooter terms, so "camping" was a misleading title for me lol

lol yea that what came to my mind first to eliraven

but back on topic some of the stuff u said would need alot of revising and thought put into it i personly to not have a preference on what happens with as when u lvl up u can make new city just put a city WAY far away then u can send troops to that city then attack the enemy

hahaha samehere i was like i didnt know you could camp in this game

Lol

It's unrealistic that an enemy kingdom would know you were coming as soon as you leave from halfway across the map. I think the game should have a horizon so that enemies can only see your attack when you come over the horizon which would be about ten minutes away for infantry (longer for cats)

lol yea that what came to my mind first to eliraven

but back on topic some of the stuff u said would need alot of revising and thought put into it i personly to not have a preference on what happens with as when u lvl up u can make new city just put a city WAY far away then u can send troops to that city then attack the enemy

Yes, I realise you can do this. I'm looking at ways to BETTER things though and building new cities far, far away does nothing for my General.
On top of that, we never have just one enemy. You can't build a hundred cities. I'm maxed at 5 and it's not enough.

This is a way to catch people off guard with their armies and jump on your enemies in the cities quicker.
Once everyone starts catching on to the game, it gets ridiculously slow in terms of actual battle.

i really like the horizon idea, but this game isnt realistic beuase people arnt just living in haypi world, they have thier livs too and check every 10 min.

hmmm well then attack the ppl near u!

I dislike the horizon suggestion, since it would give too little warning IMHO.

The 'camping' idea however, I like. Troops should be able to create encampments on oasis and forts you control to serve as a staging area for an attack, and you should be able to send troops to this staging area from more that one city so you could gather your resources.

To make it fair though, players should also be able to attack encampments as they would occupied forts or oasis'.

Setting up encampments on open spaces... interesting, but I don't think that would be easy from a programing standpoint, since it means land types would shift, and not just who controls them. I don't think that could be easily implimented.

The 'refuse war by bribeing your opponent' idea is interesting, and would certainly add a new dynamic to the game, but it opens up a new potential exploit for multiple accounts. I don't think that should be allowed.

Just my 2 cents.