Takin Sub City

How about you make it so that if you take a sub that has 0 crops, your troops don't instantly starve... that is retarded. In fact starving troops the instant your crop reaches 0 with a neg income in general is just stupid IMO.. at least give a 1-5 minute grace period.

So troops starving because u have no food is stupid? That does quite make sense...

I could live without food for some time.

but putting a subs crops to 0 right before a large army takes it is a valid tactic
why would use a large army to do the last hit on a sub take over anyway? you should have wiped the army and defences already anyway.. if i see someone trying to take my sub, if the last attack is a large army i zero the crop and get ready to pin the city to take it back right away.. starve the fool and take the city back lol

How about you make it so that if you take a sub that has 0 crops, your troops don't instantly starve... that is retarded. In fact starving troops the instant your crop reaches 0 with a neg income in general is just stupid IMO.. at least give a 1-5 minute grace period.

if you had no food you'd starve so why should this be any difference, its a valid tactic so get over it and continue playing the game.

This would only work if u were taking the sub from someone online, so wait, and if u send ur army to the city to take it and starve after taking it, no big deal, rebuild ur army and get the prestige, but if u actually do starve from it, u r a fool for sending ur entire army against them, just send 1 cav for the final hit and all the hits after the original wall clearing hit, that way u take no crop, and dont starve after u take it

So troops starving because u have no food is stupid? That does quite make sense...

Maybe read what i wrote again, cause thats not what i was saying at all..

but putting a subs crops to 0 right before a large army takes it is a valid tactic
why would use a large army to do the last hit on a sub take over anyway? you should have wiped the army and defences already anyway.. if i see someone trying to take my sub, if the last attack is a large army i zero the crop and get ready to pin the city to take it back right away.. starve the fool and take the city back lol

The fact is, sending 1 cav could easily get defeated if they are online. Its not a matter of trial and error, u have a limited number of attacks. Sometimes u need to send a whole army or at least a large enough one to make sure they dont pop an army out of hunt and ruin your plan.

if you had no food you'd starve so why should this be any difference, its a valid tactic so get over it and continue playing the game.

Really? So if an army in the field ran out of food, on that day, thousands of troops would go ahead and just fall over dead from hunger? No.... It would take a period of time for starvation to set in, and continue exponentially.

Telling someone to "get over it and continue playing the game." is probably the most unhelpful comment on this thread. It continues to amaze me at how rude and unhelpful of an expert you are. No wonder everyone on s23 hates you.

This would only work if u were taking the sub from someone online, so wait, and if u send ur army to the city to take it and starve after taking it, no big deal, rebuild ur army and get the prestige, but if u actually do starve from it, u r a fool for sending ur entire army against them, just send 1 cav for the final hit and all the hits after the original wall clearing hit, that way u take no crop, and dont starve after u take it

Again, limited attacks per day, sometimes u need a guarantee of winning if you are going to be sure of taking it.

The fact is i only lost 100 cats, but the logic behind this "valid" tactic is IN MY OPINION not sound, thats why i posted this.

Thank you all for your advice but i wasnt really asking for help, was just bringing up an aspect of the game which i thought was unfair. Whether or not they change it is obviously up to them and i understand if they dont see it the same way i do. Thank you to everyone who had something to contribute, not so much Nathan .

You all have valid points of view. Yes in real life it would take up to three weeks to have an entire army starve without food. However this game is sped up dramatically.
Imagine the map as 1 square to every mile. If for me it only takes 4 seconds to land the city next to me with cavalry then you compare that to how long it would really take ( about 5-10 minutes obviously depending on conditions please correct me if im wrong ) then you can work out that this game has been sped up by around 150X.
So where in real life An army would take 3 weeks to die in the game it should technically take your army 10.08 hours to starve which ( If you have a decent army and you are waiting for it ALL to dissapear ) is about right varying on how big the crop defecit is and other things like that.

if your stealing the city of someone online, they would usually have popped an army out of hunt long before the last attack, if they suddenly came on and it was down to the last couple attacks most people would rush to raise loyalty before harvesting an army
because so what, even if the final attack was one cav and it got defeated then just get someone else to send a large army to wipe the army that came out
if your in a half decent alliance im sure there are more than enough attacks available than just two people
if the person keeps an army to defend the last attack, wipe him and take the city.. the crop cant be 0 otherwise he wouldve starved his own army
if there is no army to defend and your worried about the crop being 0, just send one cav
it really is a very basic thing and i dont think it should be changed, it certainly shouldnt be changed to make it any EASIER to steal someones city..

So troops starving because u have no food is stupid? That does quite make sense...

Maybe read what i wrote again, cause thats not what i was saying at all.

In fact starving troops the instant your crop reaches 0 with a neg income in general is just stupid IMO

Well thats^ what i read