Overpopulation does not affect wizards?

[imhumannn]

Hey all,

I'm kinda new to this game and was reading the wiki.

"Population exceeds Max Population by 20%: Your thieves will refuse to work."

Why not wizards as well? It seems unfair for hybrids that choose A/T instead of A/M. Wouldn't that mean, when chained, unfortunately for A/T, all the money spent pumping thieves suddenly becomes useless, while for A/M, they smile upon being chained, as their WPA increases to Land Lust back their land?

Am I missing something from a "balanced" perspective?

Thanks.

[nooblet]

A/m does NOT want to be chained if they have any kind of good wpa to start. The reasons why are obvious.

[imhumannn]

Nooblet, I clearly understand that no one likes to be chained, lol.

The question was, "Population exceeds Max Population by 20%: Your thieves will refuse to work." Why not wizards as well?

[nooblet]

Because eventually a chained province will have to release wizards, and wizards are far more expensive than thieves.

There's balance for you.

[imhumannn]

It seems that the same thing would be required for an attacker/thief too?

They're both going to have to release their thieves/wizards anyway.

But with respect to that, why disable the choice of not using thieves while being overpopulated by 20% while wizards are able to still cast spells?

Your argument there is that Wizards are far more valuable than thieves right? They're kinda like a "special" unit? What makes thieves far less valuable?

As a mystic starting from the start of the age, running about 20-30% Guilds, these "special" units comes free everyday. Also wizards lost from failed spells are far less than from thievery operations AND don't we have buildings that deal with thieves? Albeit a small deterrent for super thieves.

After all that, why oh why, do wizards continue to work when 20% overpopulated while thievery is affected negatively? Also do thieves have the power to take land from their deceptively small hands and carry it on their backs to take home?

[nooblet]

What is with "newbies" coming around and trolling people who know what they're talking about?

[Palem]

Units that are abandoning you aren't going to follow orders. That just makes sense.

Wizards can help alleviate the overpopulation issues with LL, thieves don't have a way of gaining land.

Wizards are more valuable than thieves because thieves can be purchased and wizards require time to accumulate. I can gain another 10k thieves by tomorrow if I wanted to, but I can't do that with wizzies.

[imhumannn]

Then don't you think if an A/M Kingdom went head to head with A/T Kingdom, the A/M would come out in front? Seems to me A/M's will be able to train 1-2 more wpa in a war where no building specifically blocks and reduces spells. Maybe other than Rogue, A/M will win a majority of the time.

Together with what you said "Wizards can help alleviate the overpopulation issues with LL, thieves don't have a way of gaining land." imho, doesn't give much incentive to play A/T's this age.

[Anri]

Then don't you think if an A/M Kingdom went head to head with A/T Kingdom, the A/M would come out in front? Seems to me A/M's will be able to train 1-2 more wpa in a war where no building specifically blocks and reduces spells. Maybe other than Rogue, A/M will win a majority of the time.

Together with what you said "Wizards can help alleviate the overpopulation issues with LL, thieves don't have a way of gaining land." imho, doesn't give much incentive to play A/T's this age.

If you know that you are a nub dont pretend to be a leet

[American Badass]

Then don't you think if an A/M Kingdom went head to head with A/T Kingdom, the A/M would come out in front? Seems to me A/M's will be able to train 1-2 more wpa in a war where no building specifically blocks and reduces spells. Maybe other than Rogue, A/M will win a majority of the time.

Together with what you said "Wizards can help alleviate the overpopulation issues with LL, thieves don't have a way of gaining land." imho, doesn't give much incentive to play A/T's this age.

A/T Rogues vs A/M Mystics, A/T would wipe the floor with mystics... Assasinate Wizards, Nightstrike. Introduce MS killing thieves and it MIGHT become balanced.

If penalising wizards working was introduced I doubt anyone would ever attempt to play Mystic / M / AM again...

[Bishop]

Wizards work so you can LL - this is available to everyone after a chain, usually.

[nooblet]

The point of the overpopulation mechanic is in part to prevent mass-feeding a single province with soldiers. You can feed someone to train military and thieves, but you can't feed someone to train wizards. That is strictly speaking why thief ops are restricted while mage ops are not.

If a/t were so easy to play, everyone would play it, and suddenly there wouldn't be a distinction between normal attackers and attacker-thieves, leading to a boring game. People will want to jack up their tpa even further, and it becomes not a choice but an obligation. Same with a/m or any option. There has to be drawbacks, and overpopulation mechanics are one of the things to balance attacker-thieves against heavy attackers. So many people want a game where they are able to do what they want with impunity without thinking through what that means to the game.

[Topsy]

Requiring all a/m's to take 1-2 weeks inbetween wars repumping wizards they lost from 1 chain would be really annoying.

[goodz]

I do believe A/M > A/T Not because of this mechanic tho. But personally I would take 4-5 a/m hybrids as support over a/t hybrids pretty much any age :P

The ability to cast spells at a greater NW disparity being the reason

[E_Boko]

its funny to chain a a/m though. it means they stop casting MS and crap like that and HAVE to resort to using mana and runes for LL.

imo a/t > a/m but in the end i like having a bit of both personally