Heavy Cavalry Noobs?

[DeletedUser]

I don't believe people should be criticised for doing there own 'thing'.

I think criticism can be healthy so long as its constructive.

I think that a tribeless player going for a mixed/HC strat would fare better than an off only player in the same situation... convince me otherwise though

The original UK2 top 10 was rife with off only players, but all in big tribes no-one dared touch until nobles came out and meaningful wars began, by which time these players had their 2nd vill and def was no longer a vulnerability.

I would say that using an off only strat may well allow that player to accelerate faster than a mixed/HC strat player, but the latter is certainly a more solid and reliable build.

 

[DeletedUser]

[th]I never said all-offense won't work, nor would I ever do. Yet only a handful of people really knows how to play it, a multiple of it just were lucky thus far with it being successful. I played all-offense by myself in the past and could have been killed easily.

It all depends on the acutal neigbourhood, on your personal situation (all-offense needs highest activity) and other circumstances. It MAY work. It IS very effective. Yet I honestly dislike this attitude from a majority in the forums publishing "all offense is the way to play". It is NOT. It needs a lot of skill to play all-offense. And even more activity. I always tried (and will continue to try) to make people think about their style to play. Just following some stupidly repeated "all offense to go!"-postings won't teach new players. That strategy is probably the most difficult in TW, if you cannot play just for yourself in your area.
[/th]

Which would have been a much better answer to my original post than an insult, and a straw man argument, prior to this post your clear implication was that it could not be successful, no matter what you did. Your initial post I responded to by talking about a near pure defensive strategy as much as outright said that using hc was the only way to do it. Now all of a sudden its a viable strategy for some? As much as I love being insulted, I think the real show is the entire change in direction of your post.

Say what you mean next time or mean what you say, I would have thought you would approached a calm discussion about game play in a much better manner than this. Im done with this, both strategies work, depends who you are, mind you I never said HC didnt work just that its not the only option for those situations.

 

[DeletedUser4753]

In 5 days your villages are catted down to the bone. Also don't forget if your farm or barracks is catted first, which any good player would do. Then u can forget getting defense in 5 days.

Also what if the reverse happens. i.e your the aggressor and you are back timed. With no defense what so ever your force gone. and with your force gone so is your effective means to counter.

so every option u mentioned "Using lc in the intern to stop the catting, backtime, and knock out workshops and smithy's" is now not viable. so this esteemed not as risky as we thought strategy, just cost the player his acc or massive amounts of time to just get back to where he was, let alone catch the player who just caused his downfall.

so as far as i can see

pure off is
very selfish
very flawed
and very low in the risk reward ratio, ie very risky. not enough gain to compensate the risk

 

[DeletedUser4748]

I think criticism can be healthy so long as its constructive.

I think that a tribeless player going for a mixed/HC strat would fare better than an off only player in the same situation... convince me otherwise though

The original UK2 top 10 was rife with off only players, but all in big tribes no-one dared touch until nobles came out and meaningful wars began, by which time these players had their 2nd vill and def was no longer a vulnerability.

I would say that using an off only strat may well allow that player to accelerate faster than a mixed/HC strat player, but the latter is certainly a more solid and reliable build.

I have known a rank 1 player to have used just axes and spears at the start.
If you have the time and effort to put into this game I would Suggest that you race your way to Lcs.

But as our discussion goes on people will come in with there own strats and will say there's is better .....
This discussion is a never ending one because people can put 5 hours into the game and then there's people who can put 13 hours into it. So peoples strats will vary.

 

[DeletedUser]

In 5 days your villages are catted down to the bone. Also don't forget if your farm or barracks is catted first, which any good player would do. Then u can forget getting defense in 5 days.

Also what if the reverse happens. i.e your the aggressor and you are back timed. With no defense what so ever your force gone. and with your force gone so is your effective means to counter.

so every option u mentioned "Using lc in the intern to stop the catting, backtime, and knock out workshops and smithy's" is now not viable. so this esteemed not as risky as we thought strategy, just cost the player his acc or massive amounts of time to just get back to where he was, let alone catch the player who just caused his downfall.

so as far as i can see

pure off is
very selfish
very flawed
and very low in the risk reward ratio, ie very risky. not enough gain to compensate the risk

And what stops you from using lc to defend thus negating the entire argument of yours?

 

[DeletedUser]

All offense won't work when u have a famous name like tharagon, people will attack you just for the fun of saying i attacked our admin, woo hoo

I think that full o works, but if u get atttacked mass defence quickly, and in pala worlds the cat weapon is a lifesaver for full o people i think

 

[DeletedUser4748]

In 5 days your villages are catted down to the bone. Also don't forget if your farm or barracks is catted first, which any good player would do. Then u can forget getting defense in 5 days.

Also what if the reverse happens. i.e your the aggressor and you are back timed. With no defense what so ever your force gone. and with your force gone so is your effective means to counter.

so every option u mentioned "Using lc in the intern to stop the catting, backtime, and knock out workshops and smithy's" is now not viable. so this esteemed not as risky as we thought strategy, just cost the player his acc or massive amounts of time to just get back to where he was, let alone catch the player who just caused his downfall.

so as far as i can see

pure off is
very selfish
very flawed
and very low in the risk reward ratio, ie very risky. not enough gain to compensate the risk

You have not yet understood why the game is called tribal wars.

 

[DeletedUser]

Please note that in creating this thread I was by no means attempting to discredit the HC strategy. Thargoran, I am sorry if you got a little upset by my apparent closed-mindedness. I am well aware that building HC is a very legitimate strategy for certain circumstances. However, as a general rule I believe that an O startup provides the greatest oppertunities for growth and expansion, albeit with increased risk.

And as to my previous post, that was largely sacastic towards those people that call the current top 20 "startup whores". I am reminded of people saying that Germans's have no sense of humour, does this include various forms of sarcasm? Anyway, I am actually planning to stick this world out and try to make something of it. I hope you will still see me here in a few months time.

So yes, I am sorry for any ambiguity in my statements, I was not attempting to demean or belittle any strategies that are different to my own.

You have not yet understood why the game is called tribal wars.

[th]Too true. Which of your - of course also playing all-offense tribesmates - is supposed to support you? ;-) That's why I call the strategy selfish. You expect others to defend you "tribe will have to save me!".[/th]

[th]
Sorry to disappoint you, but it takes far more to make me upset. ;-) I didn't miss the sarcasm in some of your answers, though being german. Yet some new players, in particular those reading the forums the first time, may miss it. This is the point, where I start to interfere, because I don't want to have them following blindly the all-offense-idea.

I won't try to convince someone to use any HC-based strategy. It's as faulty as any other strategy in this game. There are counter-strategies to ANY style of gameplay in TribalWars. Yet some strategies need more skill to be successful, if they are countered. All-offense is one of them. Most effective as long as there isn't much resistance, yet totally open to attacking masses.

I won't comment most of the other things you've said, because I guess you'll get informed about my opinion from our internal chat just like you did thus far.
[/th]

Which would have been a much better answer to my original post than an insult, and a straw man argument, prior to this post your clear implication was that it could not be successful, no matter what you did. Your initial post I responded to by talking about a near pure defensive strategy as much as outright said that using hc was the only way to do it. Now all of a sudden its a viable strategy for some? As much as I love being insulted, I think the real show is the entire change in direction of your post.

Say what you mean next time or mean what you say, I would have thought you would approached a calm discussion about game play in a much better manner than this. Im done with this, both strategies work, depends who you are, mind you I never said HC didnt work just that its not the only option for those situations.

[th]Where did I say all-offense won't work at all? I just showed some arguments against it, which are usually not being seen or told. I - personally - highly dislike all-offense players. This isn't any secret. I won't support such players either. Regardless if they are friends and tribesmates. Unless there's some kind of (tribal) agreemend beforehand, of course. Who ever played with me in one tribe should know I'm all team-player. That's probably the reason, why I expect the same from tribesmates as well.

I said what I meant: All-offense is one of the most successful, yet most complicated and most stupidest strategy at the same time. I never said anything different. One thing is not deniable, tho: All-offense is selfish playing. [/th]

You have not yet understood why the game is called tribal wars.

[th]And you expect your tribe to defend you. Why should they build defenses, if you refuse to build them?[/th]

 

[DeletedUser]

i know i'm a noob here. but i honestly agree with thargoran.
there's just been too many times i hear people saying "ooh thats a turtle", and that village is usually ended up left alone.
and when u see 200 axes in a village, you scream with joy. On yeah, noob, nice farm.
i dont know. but i think for startup, some defenses make u formidable

 

[DeletedUser]

i know i'm a noob here. but i honestly agree with thargoran.
there's just been too many times i hear people saying "ooh thats a turtle", and that village is usually ended up left alone.
and when u see 200 axes in a village, you scream with joy. On yeah, noob, nice farm.
i dont know. but i think for startup, some defenses make u formidable

He isn't condoning turtling up with all defense, either.

 

[DeletedUser]

[[th]Where did I say all-offense won't work at all? I just showed some arguments against it, which are usually not being seen or told. I - personally - highly dislike all-offense players. This isn't any secret. I won't support such players either. Regardless if they are friends and tribesmates. Unless there's some kind of (tribal) agreemend beforehand, of course. Who ever played with me in one tribe should know I'm all team-player. That's probably the reason, why I expect the same from tribesmates as well.[/th]

[th]If anyone in the top 20 ODD (without tribal support) could tell me, how to maintain a top 20 account (in either points' rankings, ODA, and ODD rankings, this time) without HC for a couple of weeks, let me know, please.[/th]

Aside from that, which the clear implication is that it is the only meathod, you entirely ignored my explanation of how you could defend in that situation with pure offense. Sarcastically asking for more "genius" tactics, in effect saying that what I was saying was false, when we both know it is not and can be done.

 

[DeletedUser4753]

And what stops you from using lc to defend thus negating the entire argument of yours?

because in this scenario you just got backtimed. your lc is toast compared to the opposing players offense. even though you may hurt the initial force his following attacks will go in his favor more and more as he outnumbers you more evry time he strikes.

@itchy and scratchy

yes of course in any situation its better to work in a team defensively and offensively. But you could argue that the guy who's in a tribe who builds no troops and point whores is ok, as he can just gather support.

1. This is very selfish and you should not play to rely on others unless you and another player are playing together 1 offense and 1 defense.

2. When comparing strategies u have to look at it as player on player. Strategy vs strategy. Without interference from either sides tribe. Other wise you can argue any strategy is perfect because said tribe has said players back.

 

[DeletedUser]

well i guess balance is necessary?
but then again, as long as there's roughly 300-400 spears/swords in a village, i already see alot of complains of them being turtles. if there''s some hc, even less people will attack it

 

[DeletedUser]

because in this scenario you just got backtimed. your lc is toast compared to the opposing players offense. even though you may hurt the initial force his following attacks will go in his favor more and more as he outnumbers you more evry time he strikes.
.

If I get backtimed, Im losing my hc too making both situations the same.... Anyway how exactly am I getting back timed when I am the one under attack. This isnt even a straw man argument its laa laa land. Idk where you ascertained this situation.

 

[DeletedUser]

Aside from that, which the clear implication is that it is the only meathod, you entirely ignored my explanation of how you could defend in that situation with pure offense. Sarcastically asking for more "genius" tactics, in effect saying that what I was saying was false, when we both know it is not and can be done.

[th]You can NOT defend with all offense all the time against papercut attacks. It's as simple as that and I thought it would have been obvious, too. Sorry for not pointing out the obvious. [/th]

 

[DeletedUser]

[th]You can NOT defend with all offense all the time against papercut attacks. It's as simple as that and I thought it would have been obvious, too. Sorry for not pointing out the obvious. [/th]

Attacker    Units:    0    0    200    0    0    0    0    20    0         18.400    14.000    10.000    360
Losses:               0    0    200    0    0    0    0    20    0         18.400    14.000    10.000    360
Defender    Units:    0    0    0    0    1600    0    0    0    0         200.000    160.000    400.000    6.400
Losses:               0    0    0    0    34    0    0    0    0         4.250    3.400    8.500    136

Ill even step up your situation.

Attacker    Units:    0    0    500    0    0    0    0    20    0         36.400    23.000    22.000    660
Losses:               0    0    500    0    0    0    0    20    0         36.400    23.000    22.000    660
Defender    Units:    0    0    0    0    1600    0    0    0    0         200.000    160.000    400.000    6.400
Losses:               0    0    0    0    184    0    0    0    0         23.000    18.400    46.000    736

Idk when you decided this was an argument as opposed to a discussion but at that point you become the only person that can lose the exchange. Mind you in neither situation was the attacker even able to hit my rally point down all units attacking where level 3. I really am done talking with you its clear you have no interest in disucssing anything or offering fact.

Sorry to point out the obvious.

 

[DeletedUser4753]

If I get backtimed, Im losing my hc too making both situations the same.... Anyway how exactly am I getting back timed when I am the one under attack. This isnt even a straw man argument its laa laa land. Idk where you ascertained this situation.

If a hc player got backtimed. His hc is way better at defending so ur losss are less or his are more depending n who had more. You would also have spears present whereas all off would not.

so if you back time a hc player, your just attacking his normal defense. So its not even backtiming really.

if you backtime a full off vill thn the player is cleared and ready to be catted.

the reason we are on about backtiming is if your trying to justify an all offence start then all bases should be covered.

 

[DeletedUser]

Given the night bonus on this world, as well as the lack of morale penalties, I would say this world is one of the most ideal for an all out LC-offensive strategy to begin with.

 

[DeletedUser]

If a hc player got backtimed. His hc is way better at defending so ur losss are less or his are more depending n who had more. You would also have spears present whereas all off would not.

so if you back time a hc player, your just attacking his normal defense. So its not even backtiming really.

if you backtime a full off vill thn the player is cleared and ready to be catted.

the reason we are on about backtiming is if your trying to justify an all offence start then all bases should be covered.

Attacker    Units:    0    0    3000    0    2000    0    160    0    0         478.000    322.000    652.000    11.800
Losses:               0    0    2399    0    1599    0    128    0    0         382.215    257.470    521.310    9.435
Defender    Units:    1200    0    1000    0    1000    1000    0    0    0         445.000    316.000    902.000    12.200
Losses:               1200    0    1000    0    1000    1000    0    0    0         445.000    316.000    902.000    12.200
Damage by rams:     The wall has been damaged and downgraded from level 20 to level 8

Fact check guys...

 

[DeletedUser4753]

Attacker Units: 0 0 1000 0 1000 1000 160 0 0
Losses: 0 0 327 0 327 327 52 0 0

Defender Units: 0 0 3000 0 2000 0 0 0 0
Losses: 0 0 3000 0 2000 0 0 0 0

and reverse the scenario to your lc + axe defending gets smoked even worse.

so we have clarified. that we can both clear each others forces. providing thats the ratios's id go for cept u lost more in your clearance.

surly that says it all. fact wise.?