Okay supercell: You call them villages? No houses and all women. Change it.

Okay: They're called villages, but they look nothing like villages. The multiplayer levels look more like villages than ours do. We need to have citizens other than women. After this, we can be able to buy houses as decorations. Little 3x3 huts that the men and women live in. Right now it's more like an army camp filled with women. Seriously Supercell?

1. Men, not just women.
2. We are able to buy little huts that the men and women live in.
3. (Not sure if this one is good or bad, but:)The more huts we have, the happier the families are. The happier the families are, the more we get trees and bushes randomly spawning. (Or some other reward, like 1 xp every week for a 'happy village')

PLEASE COMMENT AND VOTE: If you don't like 3, just say so. The other ones I think are fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julezwatts

1. Men, not just women.
2. We are able to buy little huts that the men and women live in.
3. (Not sure if this one is good or bad, but:)The more huts we have, the happier the families are. The happier the families are, the more we get trees and bushes randomly spawning. (Or some other reward, like 1 xp every week for a 'happy village')

---

1. Does it really matter?
2. Would make it easier to 50% a base, more buildings that can't possibly fit on the current amount of space. Bad idea.
3. See #2
Overall, this would serve no purpose other than causing clutter in your base

In don't think it akes a difrence, although, the higer level ones do kind of start loching like concentracion camps from the future, rather than viliges. electric wals , sireosly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julezwatts

I wanted to suggest that we're able to place the houses inside of the forest, but want's sure if that was feasible due to the fact that we're unable to place any other buildings there. As to your other point, the huts would only be 2x2.

---

But would this have any use? Could troops destroy these buildings? What do these bypuildings do? Do they help?

Don't hate them, just don't think they are very good and need improvement!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julezwatts

These would be decorations. No they could not be destroyed, but perhaps they could be like an army post for the clan castle: EX: You can take one troop from your clan castle and place it in a hut. When an enemy comes within 2 tiles of it, it deploys. Or it deploys with the regular clan castle. Whichever comes first.

---

But really what difference does it make, would it really help us?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julezwatts

I don't know, but why call them villages when there are no houses and it's only women. (Sorry, I'm a bit OCD about it)

---

They're more commonly referred to as bases

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julezwatts

Okay: They're called villages, but they look nothing like villages. The multiplayer levels look more like villages than ours do. We need to have citizens other than women. After this, we can be able to buy houses as decorations. Little 3x3 huts that the men and women live in. Right now it's more like an army camp filled with women. Seriously Supercell?

1. Men, not just women.
2. We are able to buy little huts that the men and women live in.
3. (Not sure if this one is good or bad, but:)The more huts we have, the happier the families are. The happier the families are, the more we get trees and bushes randomly spawning. (Or some other reward, like 1 xp every week for a 'happy village')

PLEASE COMMENT AND VOTE: If you don't like 3, just say so. The other ones I think are fine.

---

I like the xp idea and the extra bushes and trees. what you could do is choose either or.

Youre not the only one to notice the lack of village-ness of the villages :D

Please excuse the necrofying of this thread i just thougb this was too interesting. I agree with this lol and how do you know all of them are women? hey might be men....