Current Fast 7 campaign. Here is the story to the benefit of all.

The game started with the following positions:
Upper Swamp : prancer.___________ Lower Swamp: PoD
Eastern Forest: Rog Ironfist ________ Western Forest: von luck
Upper Snow: Sretlaw _____________ Lower Snow: Ruy Little Cid
Western Rough: lordants __________ Eastern Rough: Julian the Emperor
Central Cursed: SNOWMAN42 ______ Eastern Cursed: 121357
(All participants are at levels of 40 to 59 except Rog at 77.)

I started the game knowing that since I’m the highest level player in this game, I might find myself very quickly facing an alliance out to take out the strongest player of the game. Especially as there were three players from the same clan in the game, CKE: lordants, Sretlaw and SNOWMAN42. The last two with borders facing me. Thus I quickly deployed Scouts to find out who’s next door and found the following;
PoD quit the game at turn 0, which made the castle disappear though her land free for the taking.
Prancer logged in only sporadically, due to ill health.

Traditionally I was going to go after my neighbour at the same land type which was von luck, but the un-expected bonanza at the swamp lands compelled me to suggest a NAP with von luck until turn 40, while I grow strong with PoD’s empty lands and a quick take over of prancer’s castle. prancer must have been ill indeed as he attacked my forces with the opposite RPS units, e.g. Spears charging 9 spaces to attack Squires which were in Defence mode INSIDE a Tower and Swordmen doing the same thing against Scouts. This single round, mass suicide produced a ratio of around 1:10 in kills without me making a single attacking move.

In the mean time, I also found out that my other neighbour was SNOWMAN42 and that 121357 stopped logging in, or was doing so only once every other day. Being a Fast game and me needing a calmer environment, I offered a sort of alliance to SNOWMAN42 and advised him to take 121357’s castle. I might have been able to stretch and do that myself, but the benefit of a strong ally/neighbour proved too large. Thus within a short period of time, I owned the Swamp lands and my original, centre Forest castle while my friendly neighbour protected me by holding all the Cursed lands. This was turn 32. By that time no one else was fighting on the board. All other players have not engaged and were busy building walls and defences. This neighbour suspicious, defensive, non-communicating strategy proved to be the downfall of most of them and still now maybe all.

Last Edited : Wednesday, 23 February 2005 - 03:22

I had 8 turns completing my preparations and getting ready to the end of my NAP with von luck, my original Forest neighbour. This also gave me the opportunity to invest in Towers and Catapults technologies, that alongside the advantage in barracks, turned to be a decisive combination. A small force sent sneakily to the north of von luck’s castle in mock attack, drew most of his forces out to protect his market which was north of his castle. While the main force attacked the south entrance. By now, I had both Swamp and Forest lands while my ally was holding the Cursed lands. Still the other participants made no moves to attack anyone. Turn 50 and NO ONE is fighting anywhere accept me.

This was time to turn my attention to the Snow lands. First was Sretlaw. His is one of the strangest tactics I have ever seen. His land was surrounded by palisades and stone walls, with multiple Outposts all around. A few meagre forces roaming everywhere and nearly an empty castle. He has invested ALL, and literally all his resources in technologies, especially defensive ones and produced no troops. When I took over his castle, there were hundreds of Scouts, Spears, Ballista, Falchs and Mace READY in the barracks but un-produced. I’m sure that if all these were deployed rather than walls and outposts built, it could have been a very different story altogether. It is now Turn 59. I now have 5 lands, 4 castles (PoD’s castle evaporated) and a massive army picking now at Ruy Little Cid.

Once the balance of the game was disrupted and one player became so powerful, there is no chance to stop him unless all other players cooperate. Since they will all fall unless cooperating, as this is a single file attack course, I still don’t understand why they still have not attacked each other. If you’re gonna fall, you might as well beat another opponent before the big bad wolf arrives at your doorstep. What’s the point of a war game if everyone sits at home building walls and not fighting? If you attack someone else now, you postpone the strong player from attacking you by virtue of avoiding a gangbang and also you will climb up the ranks rather than be defeated cleanly by the strong player. I think, that one of the main things to learn here that all-round static game play of pure defensive strategies will result in a bad game and no fun at all. It also proves that communicating and taking risks is worth while. With a pure defensive strategy comes stagnation and ultimately defeat.

Well, to each his own Rog. While I personally agree with your view, it should be noted that some WoL players of high campaign rank employ highly defensive strategies. Only each individual can determine what their own fun is.

As for this game, perhaps you said it best when you noted "(All participants are at levels of 40 to 59 except Rog at 77.)". Sounds to me like you are the highest rated player in that game for a reason.

A defensive strategy will NEVER win. Now, a defensive position is not the same as a defensive strategy, there are times when you must set up defensive positioning. Even that should be kept to a minimum though. Extended turns of a defensive position naturally become a defensive strategy. There comes a point in every game when I know I have a particular player defeated, the only question remaining is how long. I expect it would interest some players to know that my determination that victory is assured is probably much sooner than they would expect me to be that assured of it, but I'll leave you to just guessing about that

Clan games are a little bit different in that a defensive strategy for one or two of the clan players is often desirable simply to buy time for allies. The BOS/FSA game was a perfect example of that. Crovax somehow managing to hold on for a few more turns or boe falling a few turns earlier could have had a huge impact on the outcome of that game.

Fanatic, I agree about the defensive position Vs Defensive strategy issue, though what really amazed me in this game is, that it took 60 turns before anyone else, decided to attack.

So what is the winner determined upon, who is more efficient killing the few bandits in his territory? I just thought that an entire board of Defensive gaming sucks and obviously, it did lead to their demise.

I think this thread needs to be renamed to "Rog toots his own horn"

what are u trying to say rog? Im sure they had reasons for their tactics. u cant be too bad if your level 41-50 because u had to beat a few people along the way (I say this being level 49 and having had my share of victoies as well as trouncings)

it seems a bit braggarty to be putting them down and saying your way is great

So many avenues to tear you apart StCrispin, alas my favourite one is denied, for you being so far away. So, I shall restrict myself to the forums and campaigns here in WOL, which wouldn’t prove too hard a task. Now, that IS arrogance, but you’ve earned every bit of it with your unintelligent post(s).

1. Use a spell checker, if you aren’t ashamed enough as it is to make mistakes in your own mother tongue.

2. If you haven’t noticed, this is the Strategy Forum and two of WOL’s top players found it useful to comment on. Give it some time and maybe more will. There were some hot debates going on about this topic on irc and MSN chats. The issue of the post is Defensive strategies and their value. My current game is a pure example of why I deem them weak strategies. The proof is in the game. My style might have rubbed you the wrong way, but YOU on the other hand, posted something which is nothing but flaming. You haven’t even bothered to comment on the issue of Defensive strategies. You are one of those people who don’t have an opinion or even an educated guess, but feel they must be heard nevertheless.

[When you do have an opinion, you seem to be unable to differentiate between your personal beliefs and factual issues- Ref: Changing Colours thread. So what if fighting deceptively under an enemy’s uniform is punishable by death in the US military? Does that mean that ethedog is not entitled to his opinion?! How do you come out with this nonsense of “so dont use that example please to defend the idea.” Is he not allowed to put this forth as an argument because you dislike it?!]

3. To get to level 41-50 you don’t need to be good at all. You need to get into a few games, where there are enough ‘Quits’ and ‘Inactives’ to get to that level. My own level 77 which ranks me in the top 20 in campaigns in WOL, is a testament to the short-comings of the ranking system, as there are quite a few level 50 players, who’ll make minced meat out of me in a campaign. I was actually giving these other players in the game credit for their rank and expressing surprise, how players in such level use Defensive tactics which I believed wrong- that is also what we are trying to debate. So your whole semi-digested idea about having experience at a certain level is misplaced. It’s not the subject of the thread nor is it correct!

4. “Im sure they had reasons for their tactics.” ‘I’m sure’ is for people who guess and don’t know the facts. Since obviously you didn’t say ‘I know they had reasons for their tactics’ your guess is as good as your opinion, which you haven’t bothered to put forward. Probably for a reason!

5. Whether my post is in bragging style or not, is a question of personal taste. My post was born to discuss strategy and express my disappointment of a game where there’s no action. It seems to have helped btw, as two more players joined the fighting now. Ultimately, if you find my style that of a ‘braggart’ don’t read it and mostly, don’t post empty comments. Thank you very much.


Now, if anyone wants to say anything about Defensive strategies, their value and pit-falls, please do. I heard many views recently about it and _know_ that many people here DO have an opinion.


Rog

PS I used quite a bit of Viva’s advice, which is quite aggressive, and proved useful against opponents using a Defensive strategy.

Last Edited : Thursday, 24 February 2005 - 15:21

Looks more like a bad conspiring of circumstances to me. More players had trouble than usual, throw in a couple of defender types...suddenly - no combat

I had a game where I could sell 500 metal for 2 gold. With ALL the market techs. But I probably won't see it too often...

If we see games like this REGULARLY happening...well...then we really DO need a deep look. But I can't see it, and await any further evidence

On an outside note, defence wins if it causes a failed attack and changes ranks, or maintains desired ranks. It's just not often the case

I've found that a defensive stategy of taunting, harrassing and baiting another player to attack you is a good one. It seems the "You attacked me first" spite, revenge, is very powerful. Players will usually retaliate recklessly.

I bet CTDXXX played the game in Italy. The value of gold is pretty low I think there. Lyra too!

My dear Corflu, the current currency in Italy is the EURO, which is higher than US dollar...:-)))

I think that defensive strategies are mostly not useful in WOL, which is an offensive game.

Last Edited : Sunday, 27 February 2005 - 15:54

i didnt quite agree about the defensive strategies
depending on who is on the map and how the map is played
in my game,i saw a quite defensive player(he builds army only though,with no or little defensive building-until someone attack him)
the attacker suddenly faces a big challenge eventhough the attacker got his second castle before attacking this guy
he currently lost one of his castle and is now trying to defend his last castle.
i didnt quite see what is happening but it seems that the defender got the advantage over there
its a lvl 41-80 game by the way

Late stage defending can actually be very useful. If someone is forced into a bad attack, the effect on your score and theirs can be.....enjoyable

But of course, this assumes you already have a good position. Which probably means you've won at least 1 war already

Edit: Typo fix.

Last Edited : Monday, 28 February 2005 - 15:53

Why do the high rank players seem to like to treat the mid range players like their have no right to speak?

as for quits and inactives, i dont see how quitting a game is going to help me gain rank. not that I have ever quit any game other than a no score game a accidentally entered.

and in reguards to KNOWING they had reasons, i cant know since i didnt ask them. but what idiot chooses a tactic without having a reason?

and spell checker? I dont use cut and past or pre-trype my comments n a word processor. I prefer to use WOL to enter my WOL comments.

My take on defensive doctrine: It doesnt work. I dont use it. I like people who do because I can kill them easily. unless im defending lots of walls with lots of balista so when I LOSE i still come in 1st place, then its useful.

everyone has a right to speak and offer an opinion I believe. Here, and in the real world. Unless my spouse tells me otherwise!

StCrispin,

I don't believe anyone around here's challenged your right to speak.

But when you speak in public you also open yourself up to discourse, critique, and disagreement.

That's all I've seen happen here and elsewhere. And you can't really deny discourse without denying everyone else's right to speak.

Bottom line. If you say/post something, you can't just expect no one to disagree or argue with you. If you have a valid point, then argue it! If instead you realised that the other person is right, admit it (or at least drop it)! That's freedom of speech and discourse.

Card

I just dont like physical threats and insults when I decide to defend someone elses right to use a strategy someone else thinks is a lame duck.

Notice: "So many avenues to tear you apart StCrispin, alas my favourite one is denied, for you being so far away." --rog

this is a blatant comment indicating s desire to do physical harm for my opinion of the topic.

and it continues "So, I shall restrict myself to the forums and campaigns here in WOL, which wouldn’t prove too hard a task. Now, that IS arrogance, but you’ve earned every bit of it with your unintelligent post(s)."--rog

thats a clear insult, not that i care. but i do wonder if I learned DUTCH as the first language i could speak then why did he say english is my mother toung? I am dislexic too so thank you for pointing out my spelling troubles. It didnt stop me from earning a BA in Writing.

does anyone KNOW what these people used a defensive startegy? I dont. I dont think they would just say "im going to be defensive to piss off rog"

BAH

Im done posting in this thread. My views arent wanted anyway so U WIN ROG! Have fun with your self serving thread.

@disturbedyang – you are correct, sometimes the attacker faces an uncalculated challenge, against a well defended player. The surprise and losses of an ill-planned attack and well positioned defence, can very well turn the tables quickly and make the attacker a weak defender. But the point here was about a whole group of players being defensive, which eventually rendered them weak against one aggressive attacker. And as time passed, the imbalance in castle numbers and the defenders inactivity grew too large. But overall, I agree with you that a good defence can cause a badly prepared attacker to lose everything.

I think the key lies in what Fanatic said “…a defensive position is not the same as a defensive strategy…” which might prepare for positioning your troops to absorb an attack so you might leverage on it, to retaliate and conquer. The acts of Defensive strategy could be as simple as placing a small unit as bait with a larger force to devour the attackers, or blocking a few routes to your lands, thus channelling the enemy attacks against a strengthened position. It might also include building ONLY Ballista and Mace troops, which are perhaps best suited for defence, or investing all your resources into improving your walls and takeover protection.

One way to illustrate this is given to us by Boevoipes in his bio: "The clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy's will to be imposed on him" -Sun Tzu, The Art of War. Make the enemy believe you are hiding under a weak defence and cause to him attack recklessly as Juxtaposer said. Defence strategies can be useful only in combination with an overall aggressive intent of expanding your game’s territory.

____________________________________________________

@StCrispin - I have no clue why you invite such punishment on yourself, even after several people (other than I) have politely advised you to stopper that unintelligent gob of yours. Your posts are empty heaps of words, designed with the sole purpose of being heard and/or insulting. As a matter of after-thought you also add a little snippet of content, and even that seems designed only to provide an excuse for posting at all. Do us all a great favour and shut up- everywhere, or as you so surprisingly and for a change eloquently put it “My views arent wanted anyway…”.

Yes, I do wish to physically harm you and I am not a hypocrite to hide it for the sake of being polite. You have taken it on yourself to insult me personally and accuse my country with unspeakable crimes. In your stupidity, you very thinly mask your borderline anti-Semitic beliefs. Many people here were shocked by your comments, but since it matters little to them, they cared not to comment. You even try to antagonise in other threads, yet you are such a simpleton that you might as well, try to stick your tongue out to improve your antics. I’m in two minds as whether I should answer you seriously, or just send you to your room and forbid you watching cartoons for a few weeks.

As far as language skills are concerned; OK, I get it, your mother tongue is Dutch and not English. You still state in your bio under country- USA. So I made a mistake. But that does not excuse you from writing in such a lame fashion. Even being “dislexic" (should be ‘dyslexic’) does not excuse this sort of linguistic ‘butchering’. The best bit is when you say that you earned a degree in “Writing”. I wonder what hate leaflets you published in order to win this degree?! No one expects you to equal the greatest speech writers of the 20th century- though that would be nice- but people do expect the common courtesy of being able to decipher your garbled words and meaningless sentences. Use a spell checker or even better; download for free, a tiny software called ieSpell, which enables to check spelling in Internet submission windows, like when posting here.

Last Edited : Friday, 4 March 2005 - 03:06

StCrispin, so far the only person who sees this thread as 'rog self-serving' seems to be you. I did not view it in that light when I read. Even re-reading it now I just don't see it. Rog made a point that a defensive strategy tends to be weak long term. He also made a point that a game full of players using a defensive strategy gets rather dull and boring. That was it.

From what I know of Rog (and he can correct me if I'm wrong), he considers himself a capable and skilled player, but not a 'top-10' player. Though I have never faced him that is my overall feel for his abilities in this game. He pointed out that in this particular game he was able to dominate what otherwise should have been at least a competetive game (where he might have placed 2nd or 3rd or maybe even 4th otherwise).

I hope it is possible to make a valid point or two IMO because I happen to have been a player who has erected some defences before I went off "head-hunting". Granted because lately I have found it necessary to get involved as soon as possible in war or be left playing honorable with no one to attack unless I get invoved in a "gang attack" which I won't, I have found it necessary to attempt to adjust my style of play for that reason.

Again I repeat that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and "one man's meat is another man's poison" (i.e. I'm sure we all have our ideas of fun). Some people find it fun to build defences that would stifle the most *vicious attacks* while other folks only find it fun to make *vicious attacks*. I have seen both and I'm inclined to agree that a player who has achieved a score that allows him to play in 40 to 80 ranked games probably has valid reasons why he does what he does.

There was also mention of a player who builds elaborate defences but leaves very few troops to defend. If his main army is out on the offence or on its way, leaving walls to block passages and also strategically located towers for his return as I have done, IMO sure beats having to negotiate for time before someone else attacks me because I have just been in battle.

PS:
Maybe I shouldn't have versed an opinion here but my opinion is that walls alone deterred the hordes of many ancient and medieval horsemen and the "rush offensive" is mostly with horsemen I believe and is not my idea of fun.

TR