Protection passing

AdinTheDark

1) that’s not even what the posts are about.

2) I guess E13/K13/L3/L19 are about the amount of people I should shoot for? There are more targets outside of my province and allies in the top 30 yet you all seem to be scared to spend a tick out of protection.

I was hoping to have an actual discussion about an issue i believe is not fair game play let alone fun to play against without one of you jumping in and attacking me. Who or how many I’m allied with has nothing to do with this discussion but you have some personal agenda towards me and it seems really unhealthy. Have you thought about meditating or therapy?

skigglez

AdinTheDark
Haha stop frothing from the mouth dude. How are we scared when we are the ones who are making attacks to be in protection? Dunno which kingdom you are but guessing you are one of the T4 guys who have been farming the past few weeks. Nobody else seems to have much of an issue finding targets, so that’s an issue with how you and your prov choose to play the game

Lord Thane

AdinTheDark CLI wasn't designed to prevent castle passing, since castle passing was not the issue. The issue was pre-re, due to pre-re csstle passing was born as the only defense. Preventing pre-re naturally discourages use of castle passing.

Waiting until there's an apparent problem that needs addressing is the only logical course to take, if there's only a hypothetical problem then it wouldn't make much sense to try deterring it.

Even in this scenario of someone getting hit by an ally to get protection, it's not putting that person in a better situation, especially considering the retal far outlives the protection they'd be getting. In this scenario, the attacker would only be getting either a little bit of land prot or the slightly larger castle prot - once that wears off then they're vulnerable to getting pre-re by the person they attacked. So what should they do? Have their ally hit them again to outlast the retal? So this hypothetical attacker is supposed to let their allies hit them twice just to avoid getting pre-re from the kingdom they originally attacked? Okay, but it seems like a losing strategy. Why try to make up a rule to discourage that? Seems like it discourages itself.

AdinTheDark

Lord Thane

Seems to be working effectively enough for one side even with the downsides you’ve said.

I guess I’m just wrong and it’s a tactic I need to get use to and figure out how to abuse myself.

trupheus

Lord Thane The issue was pre-re, due to pre-re csstle passing was born as the only defense. Preventing pre-re naturally discourages use of castle passing.

CLI created a new scenario to deal with alongside Pre/Re and castle passing. I think that’s what isn’t being seen. In fact castle passing still happens as a result.

People are still passing to prevent the pre re when they fail or take land. People do this constantly. If they make a hit and only take land or fail they have a buddy there to hit them and put them in protection then the buddy also gains protection if they gained a castle. If he doesn’t gain a castle next up. Until SOMEONE gets a castle and everyone is in a safe place inside protection and your alliance is able to hold onto as much land and castles as possible.

By your own logic, if someone passes just hit them back you know they have very little at home. If someone sends 100% just hit them you know they have next to nothing depending on how long it’s been. That was in the game before CLI. CLI just created more complexity.

AdinTheDark

skigglez

Glad you’re part of this conversation. It’s really moving it along nicely.

Lord Thane

AdinTheDark I guess, I mean what's the alternative?

Someone fails an attack. They can start building troops to mount a defense for a potential pre-re, total potential losses 0 to 2X. Or they can stagnate and let their allies hit them 2X and also get retalled, total potential losses 2X to 3X.

I guess the defender could try having an ally hit for the first, wait until that prot ends, then hit again and also retal. But that's banking on the enemy having available armies and coordination for such a tactic.

The best thing to do imo would be to not oversend on the initial attack, that way if it fails the remaining garrison can stand a chance to defend against whatever happens.

skigglez

AdinTheDark
It’s the same conversation you’ve tried having 30 times with Thane already. He can basically just copy and paste his response at this point. Maybe one day you’ll develop a high enough level of reading comprehension to understand it, I believe in you!

AdinTheDark

skigglez

Whatever you say buddy. I can’t post on here with you jumping on my dick. I’ve rarely made a point about this but ok. 30 times. For sure. You guys win. There is no need to really post on this any more so kindly follow my lead here and shut the fuck up.

skigglez

AdinTheDark
Hahahahaha holy shit relax dude. Looks like my frothing at the mouth comment wasn't very far off.

FriendsInSpace

AdinTheDark

Ok I'll bite, what is your solution to the issue then? And it can't be "just go back to the way things were".

Lord Thane

trupheus well, the point of CLI is also not to confine players into such a narrow path so as to remove all sense of strategy and play in the game. Like I said to Adin, in this hypothetical situation a failed attacker would need to let allies feed on them 2X to outlive the retal, just to avoid a pre-re, the net-loss to their kingdom in doing that must make the hypothetical a really poor option.

So I don't think we need to make up another new rule to prevent strategic stupidity. If they think letting allies feed off them 2X is superior than actually defending their kingdom properly, let them see how that works out.

« Previous Page