Destroying Branch Cities

When there is a fight between players, or a spy in an alliance, or someone has level 20 crops etc...players attack the branch city and capture it for themselves as revenge etc...

However, if the attacking player has already built their max amount of branch cities, attacking the opponent's branch city 10 times and reducing loyalty to zero does nothing.

I propose that another option be implemented: Burn branch city.
When a sub city's loyalty is reduced to 0, a pop-up should appear:
"You have successfully defeated this city, would you like to capture the city, destroy the city, or have mercy?" Then let the player choose.

This way, a player who has built all their branches can still do damage to an enemy by eliminating one of their branches.

Hope others like this idea,
Marth316

Another idea is to lower level of all buildings and feilds in city by one or two Giving the revenge while not destroying city.

Overtime's option would only allow them easy pp gain.

I have mixed feelings about this. Having been victim to having all 5 of my subs stolen overnight by a single player with 10 alt accounts during the period when alerts went working was pretty sucky. However, I still had the opportunity to steal them back which was pretty easy given they were all on alt accounts and thus very easy to steal with no defenses. But if the cities had all been destroyed I would have been pretty messed up (even more than I already was).

On the other hand, once a server is well-established and players are constantly building max troops, they want to have max number of subs at all time for optimal building. Additionally, it takes more and more prestige to level up the 3 times needed to get a new sub. Thus, on older servers it is very hard to find a player with an open sub slot making this option very applicable.

It has potential, but I'm not completely sold.

Muku you are right I am from 112 which is a merged server with many strong players, so I guess it seemed like a better idea to me. Maybe limit it to servers that have merged.

That must have sucked to lose all cities, but the alert not working is not a fault in my suggestion.

Good players will donate or use all resources, kill troops and resign crop oasis to avoid retaliation, so one of the only ways to really hurt them is to take a sub.
Completely reducing a city's loyalty needs to have some repercussions. It isnt fair to the player who wants to build all their cities.
I haven't completely worked through this idea, yes, but I wanted to get in out there and start some discussion.

destroying a city would be too harsh, and it could also mean malicious individuals could ruin a server

destroying a city would be too harsh, and it could also mean malicious individuals could ruin a server

they already do they are on every server.

Maybe there could be some sort of impact on the player other than the city disappearing.

If a city was being invaded (successfully) way back in the day what would happen to the people? They could either be killed, forced to leave with a new ruler in the city, or enslaved. What if bringing loyalty to 0 either forced a person's city to have a population output of 0 for so many hours OR the person's population output actually went to the person who took loyalty down to 0.

The later option would make inactive accounts very critical to high level players as a higher number of workers means they won't be the limiting factor when building for pp.

The former would be a good war tactic to keep a player from building and selling their resources for cash.

Thoughts?

second option wouldn't work as there needs to be a limiting factor, first may work though

I think you should be able to destroy cities, but only cities that are not coined, that way people who spend tons of money coining the subs have the chance to get them back and someone who wants to replace a non-coined sub with a coined sub can. I also think it should cost 20 coins a sub to destroy the sub just like moving the sub. Just my thoughts on this