[liambigelow]

Thanks for the kind words!

On 1. — this is definitely the most common piece of feedback so far, so we'll certainly look into it.

On 2. — the battles rules are the most complex part of the game, since they have evolved through the play testing and battle analogies. Our intuition has been that an invalid attacker "sabotages" the battle, and makes the whole attack fail (i.e. an ineffective army rushing a position will often lose in its entirety). And a short-but-valid word is a competent soldier who just isn't strong enough to win on their own :) Possibly something for us to explain more in one of the tutorial/lore/explanation areas.

On 3. — defenders aren't even evaluated if the attacker fails, so the attacking invalid word is removed.

Thanks again, great feedback :)