Lord Thane
my concern is actually the opposite of the one you mentioned. I believe this expanded system can still work in favor of smaller kingdoms, while also not punishing larger kingdoms for continued growth.
Here’s why:
Larger kingdoms carry increased risk — the chance of losing more castles (and land) goes up, though not guaranteed. They may win more often, but when they do lose, it hurts more.
Smaller kingdoms attacking up stand to gain disproportionately — a small kingdom taking a win off a larger opponent could walk away with a castle and/or land that exceeds what they risked.
This creates meaningful comeback potential and a fun risk/reward layer for both sides.
Additionally, I’ve noticed a growing trend: kingdoms stop building castles around the 18–19 range and instead focus only on land growth. They’re avoiding the hard jump in penalty that comes with crossing the 20-castle threshold, where the loss becomes two full castles — a harsh leap from the previous tier.
In a way, this encourages stagnation, where players are hesitant to expand further. Ironically, staying at 19 castles with a huge land base can actually be more punishing:
Losing 1 castle when you have 45 land/castle is more damaging than losing 2 castles when you have 20 land/castle.
But once they finally cross that threshold and do the "castle catch-up," they risk losing both land and castles at once, which feels brutal (2 castles + 90ish land).
By spreading out the penalty curve, we keep people building and attacking consistently — rather than parking and min-maxing. I think that ultimately helps both ends of the spectrum and keeps the gameplay dynamic and rewarding.
