It wasn't meant to be an accurate, in-depth analysis

The point was, it's nice to DEFINITELY be equal at the start

In my opinion, we had better position on the map.
Sage had a bad position, almost sorrounded by our lands and Killerdude was very far from the frontline.
At the beginning, Card played well against us...but I think he attacked too early LOD castle...before he would have a good support from Killerdude.
If I would be Cardfan...I would play more and more defensive against me/LOD...waiting for the full support of Killerdude (waiting for he would build a couple of barracks in the snow)...and trying to help Sage.
When Killerdude would transferred his barracks in the snow...the battle would be very different.

After all, COCs guys are good players, but in my opinion their strategy was not proper for their positions on the map.

CTD, both sides have the opportunity to start equal. You both get the exact same number of points. If you choose to pick 3 knights knowing that HC are the most popular troop to pick, then thats your fault. :-P

Braq, I agree with most of your analysis. My move on LOD was at the wrong time. I know what I should have done there. Hopefully we'll get another chance.

On novice games...
People don't seem to understand how to build a good army for novice games... It's all about limiting your luck. In medi games, the marks do that to a good extent. They can shoot at whatever the largest threat is to your melee. Having a more balanced setup can as well. In my experience, the only players that claimed they lost to "luck" either made some pretty big mistakes or had some truly silly troop selection... I can tell you that when I lose I'm able to point to what I did wrong. Now, there's still some areas I seem to fail to improve on, but still, I've yet to lose due to luck.

I have to say I've played a few autos. They're alright, but some of the setups REALLY favor first strike. Meaning that all things being even, it's the person that hits first that will win. I find this much less in novice games, where you have in general stronger troops and can make a much stronger counterattack than you can in autos.

That's really why I don't like them. It just feels like jostling around for first strike.

Card

what you said about auto´s is wrong cardfan.

"I find this much less in novice games, where you have in general stronger troops and can make a much stronger counterattack than you can in autos."
they´re also weaker in health if they are weaker troops ever thought about that?

so far i never recognized that the first strike in autos is an opportunity.

I disagree Braque AND cardfan...I don't see how the assigned positions could have been more even or the battles that took place.

The struggles were cardfan and killerdude against LOD and braquemart...with killer and braque being required to travel equal distances to the front.

There wasn't a 3 on 1 versus Sage, it was 2 on 2 as well....don't know where you got that from...it was simply me and Ultima against Sage and Tal. Tal had less travel to arrive at Sage's castle than Ultima did.

And then finally a one on one battle between ector and CTD.

You speak about me and Ultima teching up faster...yes, we did...and how? We sold off our castles...towers and pallisades to do so, but by doing that we were required to take the fight to Sage's castle versus waiting and defending an open castle...the same option or strategy was available to your players as well.

This was the most even clan match I've ever played in...2 v 2, another 2 v 2 and a 1 v 1.

If you had cared to read my previous posts concerning this match, I've had nothing but good comments about the CoC participates...but trying to blame the most even positioning possible as the reason for your loss is just not willing to accept that you were outplayed.

One final comment on the positioning...at the start of the game most of our players felt that you had the better positions with more options for strategies than we...from your positions it would have certainly been easier to move troops from one castle to another depending on need...AAA was basically in one long line...whereas CoC was more grouped...
Anyway...whatever the reason, we'll take this one, perhaps the next time we meet it will be different. Good game so far and good competition as I've stated before.

Last Edited : Wednesday, 22 September 2004 - 19:38

Sugar,

You misunderstand. I'm not trying to take anything away from you guys. You DID play great. And even if the positions were even, it's not clear that CoC would have won (in fact we would STILL have had to play better than we did I think).

But I'm gonna have to disagree with you on the teching and position. You were able to back off just enough to tech up but still keep the pressure on us so that we couldn't.

Card

...and this is how two well-performing clans find room to argue in good performances

I guess we wouldn't be clans without at least a -little- head-bashing

No offense meant either cardfan. I've enjoyed the match so far and am looking forward to the seige of Tal's castle...just saw those stone walls. Time to train some rams or cats.

wtf? i havent been in the forums in a while...

first of all this was one of many several situations that could have arisen...(is that spelled right?right word?)
It really does have to do with the fact that you guys were expecting a three on one...but sugar suggested from the beggining that only him and me attack...it was an assumption after all...we COULD switch positions and find ourselves in your place but then think...the situation could not truly be measured as we would have all just had suspicions and issues with the lineup...i do believe that we would have made better decisions had we been in your positions however...not to downgrade you...but you are mostly a battle clan and still in need of some practice when it comes to clan campaings...just a thought...we cannot really recreate this and have you guys NOT make the mistakes...and we cant truly reverse the situation...its just about learning what NOT to do next time you are caught in that situation or similar a one...

it is all a learning experience...i have learned a lot too

so what were we supposed to do, realize that you knew that we knew that you could have done a 3 vs 1 on sage and we couldn't on you, and thus assume that you weren't going to take advantage of that because it is what we would expect?

well, what if you took that a step further and assumed we would know you were going to do this, and then DIDN'T defend Sage's castle as quickly with out two backliners, instead teching up like you and defending? Then if you knew that, your best option WOULD have been to triple team Sage...

You can take that like of logic for a ride till you are dizzy from all the circling, what it comes down to is that we can't read minds, and thus prepared for the worst possible outcome... trying to keep all our options avalible for as long as possible. (yes we made mistakes) Now if we had tech'd up and you had decided to triple team Sage, just how much shorter would this game have been? a lot I think.

All I'm saying is that I agree with card that you had the advantage. your worst posible options were better than our worst... Just because we could have beaten you if we had guessed correctly at your plans of action doesn't mean that we had even ground.

Smile


Its really full of stress in here guys.

*pats everyone on the head and compliments them on their good game.*

Guyz...

ector, you're right...we could have used another player against Sage...and even Sage commented about it at the start of the game in irc...no, I think we were all on msn.
But we didn't....so in your assumption...you expected that and we didn't, wouldn't that leave you in better positions then on the other fronts? I don't quite understand your thoughts...

Let me comment on a few observations that affected CoC's preformance...
First, Killer and Tal were not on the front lines...both of them should have sold off pallisades and towers, using the gold and resources TO TECH/UPGRADE. Neither did...Ultima and I, even though we WERE on the front, decided to do that and take the fight to Sage...neither of us adopted a defensive position.
All of us on the team was expecting to see expert or master troops showing up from behind the front lines from killer and Tal...of course we didn't have to deal with nothing other than basic.

Another observation...I had a 5 pop scout discover 3 comm armies of killer inside the corner of Sage's area (near the start of the battle)...just a 5 pop scout now...next thing I see is a four square area of rubble (where I'm guessing killer started a barracks then destroyed it) and his comms running back towards the snow, fleeing my 5 pop?...one of the comms could have killed that.

Then, during the battle at Sage's, Tal made the mistake of starting a barracks too close to the battle...I was able to prevent him from completing it WHILE battling Sage (just by having my armies near), and then finally was able to kill all three armies of comms...taking the barracks for myself.

Now, those are just a couple observations that in my opinion had an impact on your success. Further, I'm not saying that I nor any member of AAA are perfect...we all make mistakes and learn from them, becoming better players.

Again this game IS about trying to think as your enemy would think, or provide field situations that will make him do what you wish...it's called strategy.

Your team just couldn't recover from indecision or lack of a plan and follow thru. I recall the very first clan game I played in (before there WERE actual clan games)...the 'leader' of my team, asked for support over here...and a few turns later over there...the result was my armies moving from one side of the field to the other and accomplishing nothing...and the final result was defeat. Try to guess or read your opponent's strategy and then develope yours and stay with it....make your foe answer your actions versus you reacting to his.

Lets not stress and argue over this, guys...lets just listen to all the advice sugarleo has for us and take notes

@ector
i dont quite understand your thinking either...maybe you should adress my comments individually with quotes?i mean i AM kinda stupid when it comes to typing in the forums...i think i have yet to make a joke which everyone didnt go wtf?to...but i am pretty sure i understand what i said...there was really no need for discussion over it but it would help if you helped me understand what you meant.

@Sage
Healthy arguments are good except from when cro came in i dont think it was heated at all...not blaming cro or anything btw

What were the starting positions. Give me color not just coords. Like Corner green, middle green, Corner swamp, etc etc...

Edit: Pfft...nevermind, I'll just show you a map.

www.futurehobo.com/waronline/map.JPG

Last Edited : Thursday, 23 September 2004 - 23:36

And let us not forget in determining your strategy in a clan game. Once you know which enemies are at each location. You can then determine how much is needed for a quick castle victory.

While it sounds like AAA had the opportunity to hit Sage with 3 players, They obviously determined they only needed 2 players to get the job done. It goes with the analogy why use a 50 caliber gun to kill a rabbit, when a standard rifle does the same job just as well.

Depending on the players involved, sometimes you need 2 of your own to take him out in a reasonable time, others you need to use three. In this case, AAA only needed 2.

(how's that for stirring up a hornet's nest)

When its all said and done, you do what you think will give your team the win. Sometimes that means, one of your own clansmates job is to die, but just try to die as slowly as possible.

From reading Sugar's earlier observations, it does appear that COC made quite a few costly errors with their Barracks. If you lose one barracks (that you or the enemy destroyed) then that is a huge loss, not only in just losign the barracks but the loss of investment.

Edit:
After seeing the layout provided by Sage. I believe that AAA had a more favorable position. There I have said it. So it must be so

But not so much of an advantage that it couldn't be overcome. if we were to give Percentages. I would say 60/40 in favor of AAA.

Last Edited : Thursday, 23 September 2004 - 23:42

Well, I'd say it was pretty close IMO. Both sides have 1 player not on the line (Killer and Braq). I have a theory on castle position in which ones are easier to take from another. It is always same coler is easiest, but then after that it gets confusing. The Middle (Sage) is a hard road to battle Braq and vice versa. The Sage to Sugar is a decent easy road to fight on. There is a good size border between them with few access, but since the obvious double team is sage it is a fairly easy route.

I might give away some secrets here, but I feel I could give FSA's battle plan to the enemy and it still wont matter. The fact is that to win a clan game, it is 5v5 so, you only have to win 1 war and not loose 4.

If I were AAA this would have been my battle plan. There is no obvious fight to take to Killer. So I'd double Sage with UB and Sugar. I'd let UB do a total sell out of the walls and towers to tech up, I'd let sugar do so maybe at about 50%, leave the front of the castle and if the battle goes well, I'd finidh it off and tech up. Since sage cant do that, his lower resources will be in jeopardy, all his 2nd resources are for sure. So Sage is in a BAAAAD position. Had he been fighting against the green or swamp it would have been an easier castle war. Figthing Lower cursed and middle yellow is BAD.

Next move is to have LOD work at keeping Card occupied so Tal is the only one that can really help sage. I'd have Braq do a total sell out too and pump troops into the snow, building the 3rd barraks near LOD. This would give you a 2v1 on Card. CTD is just to contain Ector, ector becomes inconsquiential (sp), well unless he can beat CTD then we have to adjust. But CTD just needs to not loose, win is not necessary. This then forces Killer and Tal to react, and making my enemy react to me means I am winning. Then I'd look at the matchups. Now AAA would prefer Sugar and LOD to be leading the fighting in the main battles and indeed it is happening with that layout. However, it ends up that they are facing the better CoC players in SAGE and Card.

Ok now from the CoC point of view. OK Sage is not in a good position. So he needs to either do one of 2 things, go defenseive, wall up and upgrade to stone. If he can occupy Sugar and UB then it ends up a 4v3 elseware. Ok now here is where it gets tricky.
1- Leave ector on CTD and once again, just no loose and keep him from helping elseware. have tal sell his castle as well as Killer and move into the snow, going after LOD. This forces the 3v2 there and give them the advantage and puts you on offense and allows an opportunity to force Sugar to react. This would be MY pick.

2- Have tal reenforce Sage, and Killer to reenforce Card, Tal and Killer still selling out their castle and teching.

3- Similar to option 1 but have Tal go after CTD, this may be my 2nd option as if things go bad at sages, you might still be able to fight both places and do enough damage at ctd to give ector teh advantage or force UB to help CTD and give dage the 1v1.

So, thats how I look at it, I'd say the layout, regardless of players ability would be AAA 55-45. If you consider the players talent with LOD and Sugar being on the front line and that close to the enemy, maybe 65-35 AAA. Put them in any other castle and it's still 55-45 AAA. Well unless they were side by side and THEY double teamed sage, eeehh 70-30.

Funny how me and Fanatic have never had a castle next to each other in any clan war, odd. I'd like to see us do double team.

edit: Cro, I am not sure most other clans dissect layouts and strategies like we do.

Last Edited : Friday, 24 September 2004 - 00:20

To BA

We followed the plan that you described. I proposed that plan and I expected that COCs would follow their plan n.2, as they did. But, nor Tal neither Killerdude teched (it is correct ?!) up. Killer and Card faced me and LOD only with basic, while LOD had ballista and I used a lot of pikeman.

I think that the plan n.1 would be more effective for COCs. I agree with u. Because they would have 1 advantage situation...to balance our advantage against Sage.
However, as I told in a previous post, we have after all a better position on the map because we were more close to the frontline. We battled near LOD castle...where I was more close than Killerdude.