Towers are a great thing to war, however, they have a plunder penalty involved with them. Instead of gaining plunder for you, they reduce the plunder you earn. I don't believe there should be a penalty involved with them, instead, they should just give 0 plunder. Are there any legitimate reasons for the plunder penalty? Discuss.
ADT reduces plunder the most. I find that the 'higher up' the land is the less Plunder is taken away. So I'd recommend having towers on HF/AB if your worried about Plunder. Put ADT on HL if worried about cost to build.
I just think if it's not an intentional penalty, they should do something to fix it. No reason to penalize somebody for trying to make themselves harder to hit.
I do agree with that, I don't think it was intended to reduce plunder as I see no real reason why they would, they just haven't changed it or are happy taking gold away.
Having a good war build should have drawbacks I don't have any problem with it And I wouldn't say significantly I think people tend to exaggerate how much they lose of plunder
That's mostly because you just have a lot of low level towers, if you have a few high level it's not as noticeable
Tower builds are already common enough with war of towers didn't have any drawbacks everyone would have towers. As for the reason they drop plunder is due to the fact they add static defense and nothing to your offense so nothing you can gain but take up space. So in a sense it does make sense as to why they drop plunder.
I wholeheartedly agree. However, there are probably some players that don't add towers because they know it cuts plunder. It could possibly discourage people.
Depending on the amount of towers you have even with EE lvl5 you may still not fully make what would without them. Those who only have enough to get by now with EE lvl5 I am sure actually make more. It just depends to me more you war more towers you should have.