I was thinking about how many times I have despaired in a campaign but hung in there and some wild occurrence keeps me from being engulfed. You never know when your opponent is going to eat a bad pepperoni and be laid up until he is inactive or just decides to quit for some darn reason. The result? Ding ding! Castles!

So my advice is to hang on like grim death until they pry your frigid corpse from the last banana in your republic.

Yes I have too been in situations where all seem lost but then the game turned and I was able to come back to win them. Quitters who quit just because things gets a little rough should reconsider.

Oh the Irony of this situation. Awesome advice!

Something else I'd like to point out. Almost every time someone drops out and I get their castle, they have torn down all the walls. I think this shows overconfidence and shortsightedness, Defending a slab is nearly impossible except it gives the extra defense. In a duel it may make more sense, since if you wipe out your opponent he isn't going to get anywhere near your castle anyway. But in a campaign,as soon as you are done with one guy, here comes the next one! If you just inherited a slab, now you have to defend it! I guess as a means of annoying your victor it is a strategy...

If you have multiple castles and one is far behind the lines, then it makes more sense to take down the walls, but by that time your income should be big enough not to need to do it.

How can one "hang in there" if he tears "there" down?

Yes, but... those walls are worth gold. And gold buys more units. If a castle is deep in your territory, you have good visibility of the approaches to it (e.g. with outposts or odd 1-3 pop scouts left over), then why not cannibalise it to feed the war effort? True, at some point you might have to defend it, but you will have more units to do so with.

To compare one with another, you also need to bear in mind the net present value of the gold vs the net present value of the intact castle.

What is net present value (NPV)? Well, it is an accountancy term, but basically it can be summarised by "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush", perhaps accompanied by "nothing ventured, nothing gained" and "a stitch in time, saves nine".

OK, I'll stop speaking in proverbs. It is a way of comparing assets you have now with assets you have in the future.

Now, you may have a castle now, but not many troops (perhaps you lost a lot taking over a castle?). If your castle is about to be attacked, it is most valuable in its current form, i.e. a castle. In this case, it is pretty much worth the purchase cost of a castle, i.e. what it would cost to buy the walls, towers, barracks etc that constitute the castle.

ON the other hand, if you've a castle, but no immediate threats to it (e.g. other players are fighting on the opposite side of the map, or it is in the corner, protected by your other castles), then its value as a castle is rather limited.

On the other hand, by tearing it down for salvage, you can turn it into gold. Not as much as it would cost to rebuild it, admittedly, but definitely more useful to you because you can use it to buy what you need NOW. Urgently need a new ballista/knight/maceman to attack the next player / save your main castle from attack? Then tear down those walls.

The problem comes in deciding whether or not it's worth it. There's no easy accounting in Waronline (well, other than that you should definitely progress as quick as possible up to empire tech).

However, bear in mind this: success in combat depends on bringing the maximum concentration of forces to bear, at the right time. An intact castle might (or might not) be useful at some time in the future, but if you end up in a bloody war of attrition that saps all your strength, all the castles in the world won't help you when the next opponent comes knocking on your door. In that respect, the extra forces you buy with the proceeds from tearing down the castle, might well save you losses in excess of the purchase cost of the castle, by enabling you to defeat your current opponent quicker. (and without losing your most experienced troops).

This is why the castle may well be worth more to you torn down and converted into knights or ballis.

overconfidence? Perhaps, but if you're aggressive (as I am), those pallisades and towers are gone to buy me troops, techs or upgrades within the first turn or two. I'm speaking about my starting castle....the second may be a different story, I may need the assistance of walls/towers if another player attacks just as I've taken it. Many weak players will attempt to use this tactic to gain an advantage.

shortsightedness? No, again, only referring to the starting castle. If I can't defend a slab with the extra units/techs/upgrades that the sell back gave me....then I deserve to lose. It's all a matter of skill, tactics and strategy....some players attempt it, but die because they lack one or more of those in their gameplaying.

Hambone's previous post pretty much 'says it all'.

A good reason to keep the walls is that you can then leave a much, much smaller defender corps. A slab is open to sneak attack or being stolen, even. If you think you are only going to be on the offensive at all times, yes, I call that overconfidence. Eventually you will find yourselves driven back to your naked slab and wish you had some damn walls to keep your women and kids safe!

I get the idea that the few thousand extra gold will make some difference to you, but count it up, just how much? A few grand, I believe. You make that each turn, so you are losing a great defense for approximately one high level troop, maybe two. Whereas you might last many extra turns in a game with your walls intact, thereby salvaging a difficult game situation.

True, Mog, for those that are reckless, unskilled or timid. Not true for many other of us.

Selling those towers/walls at the start of a game equates into an advantage over the first player you attack....of course, if one is timid, defensive in style or waits for a fight to come to them, then absolutely, those towers 'could be' invaluable for that type of game play.
Even as I say that, however, I think of what good were they for the player I attacked....I still defeated him and then sold his towers/walls and purchased more techs/troops. Sure, his towered archers got to pick off a few of my basics at the start of the assault...but once my ballista (purchased using the gold I got from selling off my towers/walls) arrives and he hasn't managed to get one....who wins? Me.

EDIT: Forgot to comment about the sneak attack/stolen castle....that's a reckless player that doesn't have border patrols or outposts to be certain NO one comes within two moves of the castle without being seen. If one doesn't 'see' the benefit of those and another can move in with a comm and takeover, then they deserve being eliminated and learning that lesson the hard way.

I actually had a player attempt that sneak in around the border tactic in the current camp, you and I are playing. He did a very good job of moving and stopping the comm behind trees/bushes.
I played 'as if' I didn't see them, allowing him to move within one turn of my castle slab, even let him build an outpost, which I took and sold back, before killing his comm. It was entertaining, and perhaps he would have been successful as you suggested against another player....but 'overseeing' my castle...walls or no walls...is job one.

Last Edited : Friday, 3 May 2013 - 11:05

I've been tearing down my castle a lot lately,but only if I'm in a corner or surrounded by a lot of brush. And I always try to keep at least 3 comms in it to rebuild quickly,if an opposing player is approaching. I've also been focusing on staying alive until the end of the game,more so than trying to win.

Staying alive is a good tactic

I really had to learn how to stay alive,in the game,especially whenever I went against Hulio and Commy Wu.

attack is the best defence. i do not believe in defensive strategy. one will never be in the 1st or 2nd place with such approach

I wasn't suggesting a defensive posture, only that even when forced onto defense one can hang in there until things change.

I will not finish in the top 3,but I will last until the end. Because I'm using a defensive style.

Not if your castle is anywhere near mine.
Agreed, bestia....offense, always.

Offense wins games, defense wins championships... -> here it is not true.

If you play a good defense, you kill more units than the person who attacked you

BUT

to build defensive structures and defensive units cost a lot of gold. Your offensively playing opponent can easily grab more castles when you are preparing your defense. So, when you are ready and he focusses on you, he has a much higher gold income. I watched this in the campaign. Hulio was building an army from the start of the camp and build some defensive structures. Then LOD came, with the gold income of 3 castles and wiped him out in a few turns. Hulio had lots of Macemen, Knights, HC and Ballis. I think, if he had been a bit more aggressive/offensive the fight would have been more balanced since LOD had some casualties in his fights before.

I agree with you Funker,building a lot of higher level troops early in the game is good,and use them in an agressive style early. I used to wait until I had a large army,then I would attack,but that never worked for me. Everybody here knows that when I play,I come out early and start exploring the map,and I always have at least 1 army all the way on the other side of the board,opposite of my castle.

I know the game you speak of Funk's! And yes you are right, I was boxed in a little, however, with an agreement with you and mog the only other person near me who was in battle already, my options where limited. I do feel however, if I had of attacked LOD when I first spotted him I might have got the upper hand slightly, his troops came in fits and starts... I might be wrong however.

Last Edited : Monday, 24 June 2013 - 06:49

But I decided, stupidly, to wait it out and use my castle and take a defensive stance... might have worked on some inexperienced players... but not on an old vet!! Old as in long time player, not old old

Oh, he's old.