Posts by Dignitos

I see what you are saying with Forge and upgrades, and you are correct, but this is on another level.

Under your own example, yes 20/20 units will definitely beat 0:0 units with much fewer losses but now imagine a player with 3 extra carabiner slots. Now every wave your frontline is getting breached and you are losing backline every wave.


I'm not against bigger battlefields, I think it would be cool if we had them in fact, but just not like this.

So, under point 4), does that mean that the attacker can have a bigger field (placing down more units) then the defender since they establish their own field? If so, I think that would be the biggest balance break the game has ever seen.

Also feel free RMT advertise in game. This guy has been reported already a while ago with no action. Ika team approves. See if you can catch any whales yourself before you vacation

Sorry homeboy. This is the pinnacle gameplay the Ikariam team has in mind for their game and have shown no signs of wanting it to change. When they reply, they double down.

The thread in its entirety was directed at the ikariam team.

I know this topic has come up many times before and that discussions around multi‑accounting can get heated. I’m not trying to reopen old arguments or stir up frustration. I may still be mistaken on some points, and I’m genuinely open to correction. My hope is for a calm conversation with the Ikariam team, ideally with someone who can explain the official reasoning behind the current stance on multi‑accounting.

From what I understand, multi‑accounting is allowed because it would be unfair to players who have more accounts than there are servers available. However, this reasoning seems difficult to reconcile with the recent server mergers.

Before the mergers, we had ~250 servers. After the mergers, we have ~60. If the original justification for allowing multi‑accounts was that some players had more accounts than servers, then reducing the number of servers by ~75% would logically create the exact situation the rule was meant to avoid.

This raises a few questions:

• Were there really players with hundreds of accounts before multi‑accounting was officially permitted?
• If not, then why was this justification used?
• If yes, then how does the merger not contradict the stated logic?

Multi accounting would be considered cheating in any other game that has PvP and the other accounts can be used to prop your own account up higher (such as piracy) or hurt the enemy (dragging miracles down). Game devs in other games don’t just ban cheaters, they actively work to prevent cheating in the future. Banning alone might drive up sales in the short term, but they know long term their player base will abandon their game if cheating is not combatted and is widespread (let alone sanctioned.)

How do you guys repeatedly pillage players from far away to siphon their resources?

I was thinking of creating a new city on their island to both station troops there as well as to cut out half of the trip. Now boats are only going from their island to mine instead of constantly from mine to theirs and back.

The city would then get demolished and placed somewhere else when a new target is found.

I'm pretty new so I wanted to know if there are more efficient ways than this.