What is your thought process behind this?

Please explain why you think this is ok: @PGDave @pgEcho

Means smaller players cant be trainwrecked by visas (losing weeks of troops in 1 go)

Seems like a solid change.

Also helps newer players that are to be introduced soon (read: all of platinum), that might not completely understand the more advanced mechanics to play without accidentally losing weeks of building troops on one poorly thought out / executed attack.


How about explain why you think it’s not OK? It seems fairly reasonable to me, but maybe I’m missing something.

1 Like

@pgecho How will this be applied to Castle Guards?


But in the same matter doesn’t I basically discourage people from lvling primarchs(using higher tier prims)?

I’m not sure why to leave a say rusher(trapper) to get a silver one when a bronze sieger comes to our base and the effects of the bigger rusher won’t count!

Maybe incorporate base on location:
Say enemy comes to my castle it is based off of my primarch tier
Same with if I go to a enemy it’s based on theirs
NML maybe based on the defender

Or do you see something I’m not seeing? Or do you basically think it lvls out with what savage said below?

The stats of the silver primes get so much better that attacking or defending with a bronze, you will be destroyed… Or at the very least, have terrible troop:glory ratios.


You can kill up to your attacking primarch’s tier kill cap per attacking when attacking castle guards.

This isn’t me trying to bash this… more to get a better understanding why!

The way the bigger rusher will count is because the defensive stats are significantly higher than that of the bronze tier. So you lose less troops vs the attacker.


so basically it’s like a silver rusher(trapper) is really a bronze lvl 20…
only benift you get is extra stats not the extra troop lose

1 Like

Yes until you get into the attacking primarchs which can kill more castle guards per hit, then it takes less time to defeat an enemy which will come in handy.

Then why wouldn’t they us a system like this?

It benifits getting higher primarch tiers to defend your base, which makes people want to get higher attacking primacy tiers so they can even playing field and not take the big diductions for attacking higher tier primachs

If you have high level silver primes defending your base, your attackers will lose more than you do if they are using bronze

1 Like

Only do to stats correct? Not using the full ability of a higher tier( which is stats and greater troop loss)

Not sure what you mean by full abilities.

The silver primes can kill (or lose) their max against other silver and will kill the max against guards (if attack is 100%).

The biggest change is that a failed attack by a bronze against a silver will not result in the loss of more than 7500 for the attacker.

I guess the question is I know bronze 2 is max 7,500
Silver 1 is what 25,000

Say a bronze 2 sieger hit my silver 1 trapper and lose is based like pg has is lowliest tier
7,500 max troop lose

Next say a bronze 2 sieger attacked a silver 1 trapper and lose was based off the silver 1
25,000 max troop lose

(Trying to word this correctly)
Are the troop loss equivalent just the lower tier max takes more attacks

Similar to 2/5 and 4/10, now if you reduce 4/10 you can get 2/5


Would the higher troop max have a greater loss deficit
2/5 compared to 6/10

Take the silver destroyer as an example

At level 20
(without a seasonal boost)
Troops 75000,
Defense 350
Attack 350

Literally the ONLY bronze prime that can attack and be successful is an Expert Sieger… And if the destroyer attacks the bronze Sieger, the ratio will be strongly in favor of the silver destroyer.

Ah… OK. I think I understand the question.

If I understand the message correctly, a bronze can not kill or lose more than 7,500 regardless of what it is attacking or defending against.

And a silver can’t kill or lose more than 25k in a single attack.

So, you won’t be able to wipe out a full bronze taunter in three attacks with your silver Sieger. The Taunter however, will not kill many troops, even though it will be losing its max (assuming you have a 100% attack).

They couldn’t anyway - defenders were capped by the lower limit. I don’t like this change. The previous one was better - risk has to lie with the attacker.

It would just make bronze primes never carry more than 7500. Ever.

This way, you can carry more (do get the benefit of more troops) but not lose them all in a single fight. You can still lose them all quickly. Just not almost instantly.

Bubbling a castle will be interesting now too.

And what risk was there that couldn’t be avoided by carrying fewer troops?

I suppose the sad thing is that if the silver bombs the attack, it won’t lose 25k any longer. I liked that part.

Idk… I’m torn on this. I think the old way was more compelling, but had the potential to be far too costly for weaker players.

Anyone who already has a max sliver or 4 also has a base that would be very hard to kill when defended.