Thread:NoBanana/@comment-25178962-20140714225945/@comment-25178962-20140715202946

The time it takes to extinguish a fire, vital time lost for reacting to the undoubtedly ensuing attack the fire preluded. With methods as effective and swift as these, why would you stand against them so adamantly? Just as well, these methods are not entirely risk free on the part of the defender, who would not be able to easily use a 'store/all' command because they need to keep their weapons out. As long as the buildings are retooled and not stored, they may be at greater risk than when they were originally set on fire.

Also, you have bombs for a reason. You've argued before, in a thread suggesting a 'diffuser', that the only thing making bombs more valuable than gunpower of equivalent cost is how it is unable to be stopped. The worth of this tactic would very much increase if overt and obvious attacks on structures (like completing a process that turns the entire thing red) could be foiled by a widely accepted tactic. Bombs would raise in value.

While sacrificing large portion of a (currently) valid fighting style by distraction and destruction, this would also emphasize subtlety in raids where you intend on not only stealing, but destroying. An entirely different aggressive playstyle could be developed against this ability, lending variety to the game with more extensive and sophisticated subterfuge, and the need to attack buildings more quickly than ever.