I have recently played a game were a player managed to scavange an empty castle and its resources very early in a game. They proposed a NAP but this would let them build on this advantage and completly wipe my out when the NAP ended so I decided to fight them before the advantage became too much. Coming up to turn 40ish I am definatly losing. They have far more advanced troops than me. I ask for help. I have tried to fight these two castles on my own, but they are two strong now. I find a willing ally, but the opponent cries gangbang and scares of my ally.
I believe a team with two castles from the beggining should not expect to fight one on one through out the game. They have an unfair advantage. An attack by two players early on would be unfair but by turn 40 out of 100 it is just. Just as if there is a dominate player then weeker teams can fight togther to make a fair battle. 2 castles against 2 catles, 3 castles against 3 castles.
What do people think. Is this Gangbang or Fair?

I am convicted that a war between 1 player with 2 castles and 2 players each with 1 castle in NOT a gangbang.
I had many discussion with my mate Taurus Rex and I posted about that issue.
The player with 2 castles has probably the same resources of his opponents, but that player would have 4 barracks and his opponents would have 6 barracks.
So probably the 2 players have a slight advantage, but I would not call that war a gangbang since the resources are basically balanced.

Last Edited : Sunday, 20 February 2005 - 08:21

Once again I have to point out the basic unfairness and imbalance of the "vacant" castles. It screws up gameplay with problems like this.

If two players are both being attacked by one stronger player it is obviously not gangbanging. If the player with two castles is fighting to keep his stuff from you and never attacked you then you should probably take him on yourself since you started it.

I totally agree with Mog!.
You started, face the consecuenses.

Anyhow I don't belive in attacking another player with help just because the other player has more castles, unless this opponent specifically says that it is OK to tag another player along.

This is a delicate question and there is NO clear answer.

Let us assume that 2v1 is not fair because of the difference in barracks numbers. But, is 2v1 fair when the one player has three castles (five barracks) and not just two? With how many mines? This balance should be best left to individual players’ conscience, and maybe even score keeping. A player that has been attacked by two others that way and feel maltreated, might repeat his success in another game and revenge against one of the tag team duo from the previous game.

“The player with 2 castles has probably the same resources of his opponents, but that player would have 4 barracks and his opponents would have 6 barracks. So probably the 2 players have a slight advantage,…” Braquemart.
Well a 6 v 4 barracks is a 50% increase which is considerable. Add that to the fact that the defending player will have to fight on two fronts, thus thinning his lines even further and you’ll find that this is a ‘great’ and not “slight” disadvantage.

In general, all double tag teams outside the clan games are ‘iffy’. Thus I agree with Mog and Gueritol and think that 2v1 situations should be avoided.

I agree with Mog ,Gueritol, and Rog. Since you knew the situation before you started the fight with him, you should keep the fight 1 vs 1.

I'd say 2v1 in this case is ok, but it's rarely simple and you should be prepared for making potential lasting enemies if this is not how your opponent feels about it, and a political/forum backlash.

Then again, I play a lot of games where my wars are continuous and my next opponent often starts before the last one ends

Edit: Note - NOT WOL games

Last Edited : Friday, 25 February 2005 - 21:03

well also the single opponenet onlyhas to buy techs once, so he has 2x the income and the same expenses.

But it is a testy situation.

Yes the "tech advantage" and also the extra gold and resources going to one player do tend to cause a balance against two opponents and quite an imbalance against one opponent (i.e. together with the extra barracks production).

However, Braq and I have helped each other strickly defensively in the past against multiple attackers
and I have explained that even though I agree that a player with two castles has an unfair advantage, there is too much controversy as to whether or not it is still considered "gang attacking" to help each other against one opponent just because he has two castles.

PS:
I do repeat though that I do agree that a player with two castles or more does have a tremendous advantage over a player with only one castle (i.e. in troop production, extra gold and resources, and very likely several levels of tech advantage);
and it can't always be argued that "well the guy earned the advantage" because the guy with only one castle may have been stuck in a corner being honorable while his neighbors had gotten involved in war.

TR

I cast my vote with Baha and CTX that 2x1castle vs 1x2 castles is allowable and not a GANGBANG.

FAIR? hard to say. As can be seen the tendancy is about 60/40 or 70/30 saying 2x1 vs 1x2 is not fair. Is this because those people get 2 castle early and get attacked and it hurts them? Maybe. I know Moggy is a player of some morals though he's been known to join a multiple offensive (but fairly and justly so). so I do not argue the merit of his thoughts on this as being incorrect.

It seems that the bigges argument lies in the 6 barracks vs 4 barracks but i pose this: when I have 1 castle i find it HARD to build all the troops I am able to "train" and therefore have to balance deployment with techs and buildings and and up not being able to output 100% of my training capacity. With TWO castle however I dont have any problem with 100% deployment (or significantly less)

Thus I argue that the 2 players arent actually outputting 6 barracks worth... its most likely closer to 4 or 5 barracks worth... making it closer to that of the 4 barracks player.

ALSO the player with 2 castle can concentrate on one foe while defending or resisting the other... and once he cripples the player he's concentrating on he can sift focus.

PERSONALLY I would RATHER take on 2 foes with one castle (if I had 2) rather than a single foe with 2 castles (if I had 2) because of this ability to concentrate force.

no matter what though... 2v1 is going to upset the one guy who's getting beat on by two. so even if you can defend your name, he and any of his friends will probably single you out for vengeance later in some other game. so its something to consider carfully and handle with diplomacy. weigh the pros and cons and be willing to eat the afterschocks

Look at it this way though, two players versus a guy with two castles, whether a vacant one or two full ones isn't particularly fair. Granted the guy with two castle is better of than someone with one, but two individual players can outproduce the guy with two castles in gold and more specifically troops. Both of the team could have tax reform, thus 2000 gold overall from tax reform, the other guy could only get 1000. And more specifically, the team would be outproducing troops by 1.5: the team with max of 6 active barracks, the guy with two castles a max of 4 barracks. Therefore, it is an unfair advantage to the team. It is closer to fair than a 'normal' 2vs1, but it certainly still isn't actually fair.

I suggest that my last post be re-read because I believe even though I don't get involved to double-team a player with two castles, that a player with two castles and all the "trimmings" (i.e. all the resource facilities, gold mines, and extra barracks) not only has a tremendous advantage over a single player with only one castle, but the fact that he has all that gold and resources going into one player's possession means that he has probably gained a lead in tech by as many as 6 levels within 10 turns of gaining the second castle and he probabaly has been able to do several of the upgrades as well;

whereas two players with divided resources and incomes still must EACH do ALL the research and upgrades with half the assets of the player with two castles and both of them face the possibility of not having enough gold and resources to purchase advanced troops as was mentioned;
So in conclusion IMO the guy with two castles is also evenly matched against two players for all the reasons mentioned and because he can also even afford to obstruct one frontline while he is able to crush one opponent at the time.

PS:
I repeat that I have frowned against "2vs1" and not involved myself in "2vs1" because there are those who feel it is unfair even if only defensively, but IMO a player with two castles is evenly matched against two players with only one castle each for the reasons I have stated above. Again this is since the increased troop production with the extra barracks and I think the point of the advantage of the concentration of assets of two territories in the possession of one player is being missed by some folks.

TR

Nope...IMO, NEVER is it 'fair' for 2 players to fight 1...UNLESS the 1 agrees to the engagement.

This will happen from time to time when the one player does have one or more extra castle areas and is 'being honorable' in my opinion to agree to fight both at the same time, knowing that he is somewhat evenly matched with the two.

Factors that create that situation, of course, are numerous, including number of barracks, castles, the previous fought battles in the game (deaths suffered), the amount of time (number of turns) that extra resource bldgs have been owned, ect.

An example is of two players engaged early...troop production and deployment becomes the priority and development suffers while other non-engaged players are balancing their development both militarily and economically. The 'winner' of their 2nd castle can find themselves in a position of real weakness for many turns compared to the other player that hasn't fought yet.

By reading some of the previous comments in the thread, I think that some players are looking for reasons to justify their playing style (or lack of). Any 2 or more players that go on the offensive against one is a gangbang, period.

For the fight to be 'fair & honorable' the single player should be the one that okays it...if he/she does...then fight away.

Last Edited : Monday, 21 February 2005 - 19:14

But the player with 2 castles also has to defend 2 castles and all the land that goes with them. Just because he has 2 castles does not make it ok for 2 people to attack him!

Well again ... I have refrained from participating in a "2vs1" attack because as evidenced by the last two posts, it is still not considered ethical to do so;
but I feel so strongly that a player with two castles has such an overwelming advantage over a player with only one castle and that he, with two castles, is still not over-matched against even two players with only one castle each that I am going to make two suggestions which pertain to the advantage.

TR

Last Edited : Monday, 21 February 2005 - 20:29

Here's the answer:

Neither way is exaclty fair. The extra resources don't make up for having two extra barracks worth of produciton. And remember, it's not like this guy can plop down 4 barracks in the time it takes you to do 3. If he's taking over inactive he's got to build both extra barracks. And then if his comms are busy doing that then he doesn't have all the extra resources as fast.

That said a 1 on 1 here isn't exactly fair either. It was just luck that this guy was next to an inactive and able to claim it. If he had built his castle/barracks advantage another way then sure.

This is why I can't wait for 1 v. 1 campaigns and the new version.

Card

seems no one notice that having 6 barracks doesnt equate to being about to DEPLOY 6 barracks worth of production... its more likely that the 4 barracks 5500 gold/turn player will be able to do the followimg:

1) produce all trained troops
2) increast training techs 4 times to get about DOUBLE (or better) procuction (while the single playes prob wont get any more than 1 tech for +50%)--- this 4 barrack pumps out 8 barracks worth while 6 battacks +50% pumps out (gasp) 8 barracks worth (making it EVEN)
3) produce hight tech troops.

I dont use "u have 2 castles" to engage in a bang. In fact I would MUCH rather go against a 2 castle guy ALONE because then i dont have to argue over who gets the castles!

if 2 players (with 1) take out a player with 2 and split it up then NIETHER of them gain any advantage over the other. And having the advantage is what it takes to win (unless you kill alot and can win even if you lose)

but i will say it again...

I dont use this situation as an excuse to bang anyone. but I think theres a "political" concept to be looked at... 2x1 vs 1x2 Might be UNFFAIR but its not a BANG (or vice versa it might be a bang but it sure is fair) Flip a coin!

i'd sure rather have 2 castles and take on 2 Onesies rather than go 1v1 with 1 each... than agian 1v1 with 2 each is better than either of the other two options

Let's not forget the co-ordination factor. I tried many moons ago in a different version to round up players to dislodge KPC from the top spots, and it was a nightmare to organise. A lot of the 1's will not be versed in this skill - a double castle player, as suggested, has an opportunity to squeeze out the less able of the singles, and if he wins - he ends up with a near-unbeatable 4 castle (40% of 10 castle maps) holding.

To say it is ALWAYS unfair or ALWAYS fair is probably pushing it more than a little, and maybe over-reacting. Even so, it's not a situation I'd like to be in. Typically, you should always look to avoid complex situations with many paths to failure, and instead seek to create circumstances where your victory forms most of the outcomes. (Blah blah blah )

The co-ordination point is mentioned, but I don't think it's getting as much credit as perhaps it deserves. A big player can REALLY rip up two smaller ones with his/her own good planning and lack of it in the singles camp.

I would think most of the people screaming "unfair" are doing so because they arent to goods at fighting on two different fronts. I dislike it but i dont scream "banger" unless they are taking unfair advantage...

I think perhaps the "unfair" camp says it because they get nailed the same turn or so that they got the castle and arent heathy enough to fight again yet... in which case i guess thats not very nice.

Then again, war isnt supposed to be nice.

If you see me with 2 castles and you want to hit me as 2 onesise I welcome you. (exept you moggy pooh! you kick my butt too much already!)