It seems you didn't understand the point of this "predictable answer." The point is that the timer is introduced not for gameplay reasons, but for organizational reasons – to influence the overall duration of the games. Currently, I think it's too high; it needs to be reduced somehow, and players can figure out how to deal with the gameplay changes themselves.
to influence the overall duration of the gamesin club tournaments, because nothing gets done there. But they are held very rarely. And online – it's a different story. Online, much more time is wasted on no-shows, delays, disconnections, misunderstandings, and other inefficiencies – but that's "sacred," and no strict organizational hand interferes. But that's not the point. Let them set a time limit of 2 minutes per turn. The last M200 tournament had a short limit and no disputes about it, and many people participated. So, what prevents other organizers from setting short limits in tournaments? That would be an indicator. Otherwise, they'll just say, "The organizer decided so." Let the organizer decide, instead of hiding behind the opinion of a random sample of random people. Everyone will supposedly be in equal conditions, but that's not what it's about.
...The problem with the Tower is the overall weakness of the faction, not the timer.
Added 29 minutes ago
What is he taking into account?! The fact that you can sit down in battle and eat? Or that you can spend half an hour thinking about the next move? Or that you can spend an hour with one ballista without a skill and a harpy, killing 100 zombies for a bunch of resources?? Why should your opponent pay for this with their time?? Don't make me laugh. The future (or rather, the present :)) of the game is with the timer.
I'm not against the timer. I've heard the broken telephone again :)
And recently, I took a secondary unit with one harpy and a witch on Jebus, killing 9 guards. And what – was it unnecessary?
I'll drive the opponent to such a state that he'll pay not only with time :smile01: