considering the source, from someone who makes a habit of exploiting bugs, and has proven your word in games means absolutely nothing. It really doesn't matter what you say.

But as mentioned earlier, leave the dirt slingling and such for the chit chat forum. If you want to go at it with words in their, then I can help bring the truth to light.. but this forum is for Strategy and Tactics. No need to spam for the forum of something that doesn't apply.

You are right about one thing, I agree with you, I am a noob. As far as being stupid, that is something we all speculate from time to time, but still haven't been able to verify it.

Finguld attacked Boris! Well Boris was still fighting t3000... and you broke your word of a nap/ally with boris... shame on you crovax shame on you!, I guess we all now know your word no good.. when it only suits your benifit too brake the unforgetable rulez!,

Your the gang banger.... 3 is a little overkill considering he was badly hurt after a conflict with t3000... 2 castles is your reward? or what 1/1 with finguld..

End analysis - the only sure rule is not to get deleted by Req.

Eg, could you please clarify this statement:

"Fanatic: outnumbering your enemy counts on a significant skill difference, or having done less than your opponent in terms of warring neighbours, both of which can't be counted on."

I understand the last half, but I'm vague on what you mean in the first half.

As for the one massive force philosophy, certainly it can be used at times to good effect, but a good opponent can organize things such that you can never bring your full force to bear on his troops at any given time - which means he can hold back your entire force with perhaps 2/3 or less of his (assuming you have equal numbers). Exception to that would be if you have mass range, then it is usually easy to get all or nearly all of your full force to deal damage. In such a case though if he breaks your front ranks your dead.

Well my assumption is that you and the opponent have equal amounts of troops,and relatively the same level.

If he doesn't, either one of you has been in more battles, or there is a significant skill difference.

But you really can't count on that in a game, and have to assume your opponent has either equal or slightly more forces.

So that means when splitting your force in half when attacking him/her while he/she doesn't, means he'll be able to ***** through your melee line and subsequently crush your undefended ranged, while it's still a question how much damage your other half can still do being so weakened and without backup and shortly being pursued by a force twice it's size.

See what I'm getting at?

Well for example, you could make a dash for your opponent base while your other half kept your opponent main force occupied! I tried that before. And I was rewarded with 2 barrack

But I don't think I'm winning the war though

oh that must be an idiot that he gave you the 2 barracks...

Err... Sorry! Can't give you the list of my clientale!

Shoo! Shoo! Go find your own customer

I see what you are getting at Eg, and that does apply if both you and your opponent have troop counts in the range of perhaps 100-200 each. Push it upward to 400-500 or more and suddenly you can take say 250 of those and hold off his entire 500 for several turns while your other 250 do damage elsewhere, or maneuver into position to hit his ranged, or trap him, etc.

I would say that any of those rules are breakable or bendable at best, but all are generally sound exclusive of #5, #6 and #10 to a degree. Melee on melee is exceedingly common and I don't see it as a no-no to be avoided as long as you use your melee in proper order and take advantage of the special troop characteristics, RPS, etc. Ranged on ranged can be done effectively, especially in a defensive fighting posture with proper positioning, towers, etc. As to #10, I think breaking political issues can be risky and possibly affect your future politics in undesired ways. Personally, I'd rather sacrifice and not lose face than face of future of retributional agression.


Should I cut back on the high-falluting vocabulary? *lol*

What *is* falluting? It isn't in the online dictionary.

"High-falluting" might be slang.


It mean uppity, putting on airs, snobbish in a hillbilly or hick fashion.

Does that help?

Sure does.

And using your description, I've added it to www.urbandictionary.com

Regarding rules 6 and 7. I think melee on melee is fine and also ranged on ranged too, but any attacks should be designed to cause max damage with min casualties. So take into account RPS, # of troops, retal taken away, quality of troops, enemies remaining troops within striking range ect. So maybe you should take out "never" in those statements since those rules are often broken and new people reading rule 10 would think they shouldnt be broken often. The one mistake I think most newer players make is that they often attack piecemail instead of grouping. So they send one unit after another to get slaughtered without support. I also sometimes make this mistake when I get too impatient.

"...but any attacks should be designed to cause max damage with min casualties." - Finguld

This is one of the major factors as to why 6 and 7.

The word you ment was highfalutin (hifalutin)-

Affecting a grand style in an unconvincing way (informal)

And don't cut back on using it, the WOL forums would benefit from an air of esoteric thought: even if it gets a little bombastic.

And too keep this post somewhat on topic I'll say that Fanatic makes a good point with 6+7, ideally you should always try to get as many of those attacks as you can. Even the RPS difference is inefficient compared to the zero counter attack available with ranged units (and the x2 damage with mele vs. ranged). I see it more as an ideal to strive for rather then an absolute, because in practicality you will rarely be able to practice those rules to the letter.

Last Edited : Monday, 27 October 2003 - 20:04

Damn you Baron, you've made my entry look stupid!

www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=high-falluting

Rule #13 HAVE FUN!!!!

(unless you consider 13 to be an unlucky digit)



~Vaid

I WOULD ADD 1 MORE RULE TO YOUR LIST.

11) USE TERRAIN TO YOUR ADVANTAGE INSTEAD OF YOUR ENEMIES. IF HE IS ATTACKING YOU W/ SUPERIOR TROOPS (NUMBER OR QUALITY) RETREAT TO AN AREA WHERE YOU CAN PLUG A HOLE IN THE TERRAIN W/ 1 UNIT. THIS UNIT MIGHT DIE BUT IT WILL BUY YOU TIME TO REGROUP OR BRING IN REINFORCEMENTS..

Actually that is (roughly) covered under #8 in my detailed explanation. But it is basic to proper troop deployment to use terrain, walls, other players who are not directly involved in the conflict, to your advantage.