It hinged on the centrepiece really...I've made a mess of ^ector's field troops, and LOD/Braq's had fun over at their end, but it really needed sugar and Ult to take sage down - and considering they had to enter the caste multiple times, it couldn't have been THAT easy

As for Crusaders....I suppose we will fight in due course, it's only really a matter of time, I'd bet

Well one factor that greatly affects the length of a clan match now (or any campaign), is the change in barracks health.
With this change alone, matches will take longer now. Before, it was easy enough to take some troop losses while your troops attacked and destroyed your enemy barracks. Now that really isn't a viable strategy. Since this change, an invading force is required to dominate the defender...taking the castle whole versus the previous less time consuming approach of knocking out troop production and then taking over the castle.
It is now turn 28 in our match with CoC and ONLY one castle has fallen...another will shortly, but this change that no one has mentioned, will lengthen all conflicts.
I don't believe AAA's record of taking out all five enemy castles (in the first round), by turn 24, will ever be broken.

At Turn 29, Cardfan castle has been taken over by Braquemart...

Braquemart's orders were fulfilled as the squire tied off the rope being tugged by the breeze...attached above was the banner of AAA, now flying briskly in the towers formerly held by cardfan.
Kings LOD and Braquemart now controlled the icy region and taking little time for celebration were now reassembling their forces for the march on killer.
Sugarleo's forces had killed off the last armies of killer in the barracks near cardfan's former castle and was in the midst of taking control of the building. The other purple robed legions were marching towards Ultima's gathering armies for the assault on Tal.
King CTD was unrelentless in his assualt of ector, enjoying continued success.
Across the entire front, AAA pushed farther and deeper into the lands of CoC. The defenders were killed and the resources pundered, the Alliance of the Armed and Able marched on.

All I'll say is this:

I'm of the opinion that AAA had a pretty huge positional advantage over us to begin with. They bordered us with 4 of their players, while we only bordered them with 3 of ours.

This in effect let them tech up at will and in general put more pressure on us than we could on them. We made some mistakes that amplified this to be sure, but I still can't see it as somehow proving that CoC is somehow a 3rd tier clan. And really, the thought among the top clans seems to be that AAA sucks. Since we couldn't beat them with one hand tied behind our backs, we must suck as well. I won't believe that.

With LOD/Braq, in a heads up against LOD he wouldn't have been able to tech up like he did. I did make a mistake going after his castle when I did (and I should have seen it coming), I also overestimated how often KD could get online. In short, if Sage had been doing better I would have played it much slower. But at this point we REALLY needed something to make up for our positional disadvantage. I tried to make something happen. But couldn't.

Card

Actually, what I observed was that despite how each of the CoC players were individually skilled (making for as good as a 40+ all-star team in fact ) the co-operation was a bit hap-hazard. Even with me missing 3 turns (1 through server mess-up, right at the start and 2 later entirely my fault )

If you want an advantage, all sage had to do was wall in and from a back line of 4 you could immediately play 2 2v1's on our front-end players, while we would inevitably rush at sage and get caught off-guard . But I suppose it's pointless now, and even my observation is pretty limited

So you don't see how being able to get 4 players immediately against 3 is an advantage? I sort of doubt that Sage actually had time to wall himself in effectively.

Here's the thing. I'm not trying to take anything away from AAA. You played well, and certainly maximized your advatanges by continuing to put pressure on us while teching up. Basically, if we tried to match your techs, you'd be able to overrun us (or should at least once you noticed what was happening).

Even in this supposed 2 2v1's... they aren't true 2v1's. You'd have (I'm guessing) ^ector and Tal vs. CTD and me and KD vs. LOD.

Well, for starters Braq is closer to LOD than KD is. The same thing with Tal. UB was at least as close to CTD as Tal was). So those aren't any real 2v1. And there's no way Sage could have walled himself up fast enough to stop Sugar/UB.

IF he tried to tech up to walls right away, he'd have been dead from a 3v1 all-out rush (BoS style). And if he waited until it seemed that wasn't coming, it'd be too late.

Also as far as teamworks goes... Don't you see that this was an effect of our position? We couldn't double ANYONE right way, but you could TRIPLE one of us right away. There's no way we could get the same pressure on you as you could on us as a team.

I must also add, that I wasn't going to complain about any of this. I mean **** happens. But I had to bring up all of the facts since some are taking this opportunity to belittle our clan.

Card

Last Edited : Wednesday, 22 September 2004 - 16:25

The advantage comes in forcing it upon your enemy before they can do anything about it. Heck, we COULD have gone 5v1 on Sage, but it wouldn't help us much in the long run

I was personally surrounded by 6-7 different armies in a clan game, but I held long enough for the reinforcements to kill the other guy who'd been planning on letting AAA have his castle and setting up root in mine, and THEN rescue me

We only had the option to effectively charge Sage. you had two guys you could bash, with a left OR right sweep (or, as suggested, both )

I get the distinct feeling that somehow Ector was rushed, maybe by order or sight of circumstance, into attacking me, as well...can you confirm or deny that?

Yes ^ector was ordered to charge at that point. We were under the mistaken assumption that you had built that marketplace. On the whole ^ector COULD have played a litte more agressively eariler.

"The advantage comes in forcing it upon your enemy before they can do anything about it. Heck, we COULD have gone 5v1 on Sage, but it wouldn't help us much in the long run "

If you really understand this statement than you must understand what I mean by being at a positional disadvantage. Take a look at the map. Look at how far each player would have to move to put pressure. You'll see the advantage.

We had in effect two players behind our lines while you only had one. Meaning that any player that we could double would have (1) more reaction time and also and also (2) would be able to get some support from a neighboring player much easier.

IF we had tried to double right away you would have been able to take out Sage much more effiecently than we would have been able to double. (and really in this circumstance KD/me vs. LOD/Braq would be a positional wash). Just count the spaces, and you'll see.

That's all I'm talking about.

Card

Last Edited : Wednesday, 22 September 2004 - 16:31

It wasn't mistaken. I DID build the marketplace. And he got screwed cos Ult persuaded me to sell gems

As for the spaces....they only cut you off by a turn or two at best...
The reality is, you had a lot more options available to you. Ours was, basically, Sage

Ah damn, well, I would have liked the chance to go head to head against you then CTD.

Also I might add that we were under the impression that (since your only option WAS Sage) that you'd triple him off the bat. Maybe not like BoS did (with Lt. Pain basically suiciding against us), but still with CTD, Sugar and UB all sending their starting troops at Sage. If we tried anything else, Sage would have been dead before we could have taken any of your castles.

Also, the 1-2 turn advantage is amplied by teching up (as you certainly did). Since we can't get the pressure on. UB can go for mace early while still keeping enough pressure on Sage so that he can't. Same thing with Sugar and pikes.

Card

Cro:

"The reason Req as a battle latter, is for those who are not able to to play the FULL game well, they have something they can fall back on to feel good about themselves It's like playing Minature Golf to Real Golf."

Bad analogy. Very bad analogy. I believe Ghengis said mostly everything i could say in the battle tournament thread (he quoted you there, not here) but let me say one thing...Miniature Golf and Real Golf are completely different sports. Miniature Golf is very complex, if you play on a good course, and you really have to be able to visualize the way the ball will bounce off of walls and such. The only thing that miniature golf and regular golf have in common are the ball and putting...

"Ok, let me ask Big if he has played you in both of those formats, or just demolished you ine one of them."

Don't hide behind Big. He wasn't the one in here shooting off his mouth. Big has beaten me in both a novice game and an auto battle, yes. And until I beat him, he can say that he's a better battler than me. I still feel that I battled him in a manner not up to the best of my abilities, but thats no excuse.

You, however, have beaten me at neither.

CTD:

"Actually, what I observed was that despite how each of the CoC players were individually skilled (making for as good as a 40+ all-star team in fact ) the co-operation was a bit hap-hazard."

You consider 40+ to be all star? I think stars would be something more like...LOD, Sugarleo, yourself, and Braquemart. :-P

"If you want an advantage, all sage had to do was wall in"

I didn't even have time to get all of my resource piles (and I DID try)...how would i have time to wall up? They hit me early.

I didn't even bother with resource piles that game with BoP

I went on the charge myself, and cos the BoP was, as I put it, 'forcing the issue'....I quickly got mopped up back to the castle

And why the guy tried a castle exchange...? He REALLY had a bad position. AAA on all sides
Ok, 40+ isn't exatly ALL-STAR, but considering sometimes a clan might field a 20+ or the like in their line up....it's not exactly as if you fielded a bunch of bozo's is it?

I suppose, I'm suggesting a much bigger version of hte castle exchange, where CoC would get 2 castles, but leaving poor Sage doomed...
However, like now, long-term strategy arguing gets us nowhere, because I doubt we'll get a chance EXACTLY like that one again

Vector reads new posts, takes all things into consideration and decides that men are slaves to there competative nature and wishes deep down that he had been born a girl

Oh I didn't notice the battle bashing in there....

I've found that everyone that's got a good battle ranking is good enough to have a good campaign ranking. There are some exceptions to be sure. But these seem to be because the players either don't have time to play campaigns at all (crest most of the time), or don't check their campaigns often enough. They MIGHT not have their economics down very good. But from what I've seen a LOT of players don't have them down very well either. So they should still be able to get a good rank.

It is a lot easier to win a campaign based on other things besides skill (gangbanging, bug abuse, etc.) than it is to win a battle game based on things other than skill. Frankly, that's the appeal of battle games to me.

I'm also a big fan of the supposed change to 1v1 campaign games that Req will be rolling out with the new version.

Card

"I suppose, I'm suggesting a much bigger version of hte castle exchange, where CoC would get 2 castles, but leaving poor Sage doomed..."

Let's switch positions and you try it.

Card

Like how? Spawn points are random, this will likely never come again

And on the subject of battles, that's why I like autos
Set-ups you've never seen before, and having to come up with something a little fresher each time

Battles are always different, even with novice battles, because you never know what your opponent is going to pick.

The reason a lot of people don't play autos is because the troop selection is so stupid.

Besides, auto's aren't THAT random. There's only three auto setups:

(1. All melee, little range
(2. All range, little melee
(3. A good amount of ranged with a knight and some advanced troops thrown in.

Perhaps, but you don't get annoying case like where one of you has 5 cavs and 1 knight, while the other guy has 4 cavs and 3 knights, and realises he's immediately up against it

And maybe, it could have been a 2v1 and a 3v1, with sage being the beneficiary of the swap, leaving him not doomed

Ugh, enough already
CoC fight well, AAA fight that little itsy bit better
Certainly not SECOND TIER, either, you cheeky sod Cro (either clan)

5 HC=3500 points
1 knight=450 points

3950 points.

In a 6K game, that leaves you with 2050 points. That leaves you enough for 6 marks, 1 archer, 1 spearman. Obviously, you don't have enough fodder, so you're playing at a horrible disadvantage. You may have more HC, but you don't have anything to take the retal with! That means you'll lose almost as many HC on the retal as you kill..a typical HC attack without a retal taker will kill 3 and you'll lose 2 in retal. True, you can double up AFTER your first HC absorbs the blow...but any attack where you lose 2 HC is a tragic thing.

Now, for the other side of the battle.

4 HC=2800
3 knights=1350

4150 points. That leaves 1850 points for fodder and ranged. I'd probably go with 5 marks and 3 spearmen. Once again, you don't have much fodder...but more of your troops are knights, which take no retal. This most likely won't matter, going up all that HC, but then again, you're the idiot who picked knights.

But don't think all is lost for the player with 3 knights, though! Neither player has any macemen to protect his main troops, and his fodder are too precious to waste like that...so first strike could quite possibly be deadly. If you do it right, you could either (A. Destroy one of the enemy marksmen stacks or (B. Take a HC down to abysmal levels of health, if not completely kill it. Now, since player 2 has no archers, if you pick choice A, you're going to lose 2 or 3 marks on the retal...probably 2. First marksmen kills 2, loses 2 (since it moved previous to attacking, if it hadn't moved it'd kill 3). Second marksmen kills 2 more...and by the time all 5 have attacked, the enemy would be down a stack of marksmen. This isn't the best method of attack, however, because the other side would STILL have ranged superiority (50 marksmen versus 48...PLUS an archer...that archer means that they would probably absorb the retal with the archer, then kill off a stack of your marksmen..and have a stack of marksmen free to kill anything they want left over (since their marksmen didn't have to move before shooting, they can take out a stack of 10 marks in 4 shots)).

The second plan of attack is dangerous, but you WANT to get rid of those extra HC quickly. In any case, expect your knights to be all but gone after your first strike, unless you hold them back. The best plan of attack here would probably be to absorb the retal from one of the enemie's calvary with a spearman, bring down the cav by 3 or 4 from the marksmen (they moved prior to shooting, so they wouldn't kill their standard 5). Lets say it was 3, to be pessimistic. You'd move your calvary up in a spot where they'll only be vulnerable from one space next turn, and attack. Depending on how far you moved, you'd kill 2 or 3 calvary, bringing that stack down to 5 or 4. You bring up your next stack and attack, killing another 2 or 3. 3 or 2 left. With your remaining available spaces, I'd probably get in some cheap shots with my knights since they have no retal to worry about...kill 1 or 2 heavy cavs that way. The knights are pretty useless in this battle, so might as well use them to distract from your HC.

Of course, both of those troop selections suck. But I'm just saying, the battle isn't entirely decided based on the troop selections. A skilled player can still pull off a good fight, if not a win. That situation was a little extreme...RPS advantage AND ranged advantage? I would have to say that the player who picked the second strat didn't think it out very well. :-P

Anyways, that whole spiel right there (this is for people like Cro who compare battles to miniature golf) has to go through our head EACH TURN. We usually have 2, 3, 4 minutes to think out our moves. I did that entire thing without looking at the guide once. I did pull out a calculator for figuring out how many marksmen you could fit in, but thats it. See how helpful experience can be

Last Edited : Wednesday, 22 September 2004 - 17:49