DeletedUser
Yeah not the most intelligent posting your likely to see on the forum
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
DeletedUser
The Legion is really not as unbeatable in fort battles as everyone seems to think.
Elite, SV, and Bulls Bend haven't really called that many individual battles recently. And, a lot of the one's your side has called have ended up not being maxed out for some reason. A better way to try to take some forts would be trying to focus on getting a good turnout for an individual battle and getting a lot of online participation.
It really doesn't seem to me that you have really even tried that very much. I think El Hombre may have called a couple individual battles where the attackers didn't fill it up. And I think SV called one that also didn't fill up. When was the last time Elite or Bulls Bend even tried to call just one battle?
We have had plenty of attacks on our side fail and plenty fail because we just didn't have the numbers at the battle to make it happen. You go back to the drawing board and see what you can do to motivate people to come out for the battles. How many recent attacks have you had that have been maxed out and failed? Maybe 1 or 2 small forts in the last month. I don't think there has even been 1 large or medium attack filled up or even nearly filled up from the Elite, SV, Bulls Bend side in the last month.
If multiple battles are effective they will just wind up making lopsided battles where nobody has much fun. If you wind up winning an attack where you overwhelmingly outnumber the defenders, it's not a whole lot of fun. I'm not sure that will do much to motivate people to participate in future battles.
Elite, SV, and Bulls Bend haven't really called that many individual battles recently. And, a lot of the one's your side has called have ended up not being maxed out for some reason. A better way to try to take some forts would be trying to focus on getting a good turnout for an individual battle and getting a lot of online participation.
It really doesn't seem to me that you have really even tried that very much. I think El Hombre may have called a couple individual battles where the attackers didn't fill it up. And I think SV called one that also didn't fill up. When was the last time Elite or Bulls Bend even tried to call just one battle?
We have had plenty of attacks on our side fail and plenty fail because we just didn't have the numbers at the battle to make it happen. You go back to the drawing board and see what you can do to motivate people to come out for the battles. How many recent attacks have you had that have been maxed out and failed? Maybe 1 or 2 small forts in the last month. I don't think there has even been 1 large or medium attack filled up or even nearly filled up from the Elite, SV, Bulls Bend side in the last month.
If multiple battles are effective they will just wind up making lopsided battles where nobody has much fun. If you wind up winning an attack where you overwhelmingly outnumber the defenders, it's not a whole lot of fun. I'm not sure that will do much to motivate people to participate in future battles.
DeletedUser
I'm not a fan of counterattacks either, Kayak. The bottom line is one-on-one, full battle--you will win. You have the advantage of higher levels, better gear, and level 4 protective barrier and towers in most cases. I will agree with you about one thing: A full battle where we lose is more fun than a lopsided battle where we win. I'm about the action as well.
DeletedUser
I don't much like counterattacks either.
"The bottom line is one-on-one, full battle--you will win." You say this based on what? Look at westforts.com and go through the battle history. If you ignore small battles here's what you see for attacks by you and your allies:
In the last month the closest to a full attack was 69:75 Sudden Valley attacking Black Beauty.
In the month before that, Bulls Bend had a 90:84 on medium Fort Last Stand which was defended against. Sudden Valley took a large fort in a 140:65 battle (only battle of the day). Bulls Bend lost an attack on Fort Redemption that was 120:112 (multiple attacks were called).
So, by my count on medium and large forts attacks, you have not out-numbered the defenders in 1 battle in the last month. In the last 2 months you have outnumbered defenders 3 times. Only 1 of those battles were the attackers maxed out, and you won that battle. The others you had a 6 man advantage when a full battle would give you a 16 man advantage. And, you had a 8 man advantage when a full battle would give you a 20 man advantage.
People play this game for fun. If your strategy makes battles not fun, then people will stop showing up. Does anyone really want to win a battle that is 37 attackers against 12 defenders?
"The bottom line is one-on-one, full battle--you will win." You say this based on what? Look at westforts.com and go through the battle history. If you ignore small battles here's what you see for attacks by you and your allies:
In the last month the closest to a full attack was 69:75 Sudden Valley attacking Black Beauty.
In the month before that, Bulls Bend had a 90:84 on medium Fort Last Stand which was defended against. Sudden Valley took a large fort in a 140:65 battle (only battle of the day). Bulls Bend lost an attack on Fort Redemption that was 120:112 (multiple attacks were called).
So, by my count on medium and large forts attacks, you have not out-numbered the defenders in 1 battle in the last month. In the last 2 months you have outnumbered defenders 3 times. Only 1 of those battles were the attackers maxed out, and you won that battle. The others you had a 6 man advantage when a full battle would give you a 16 man advantage. And, you had a 8 man advantage when a full battle would give you a 20 man advantage.
People play this game for fun. If your strategy makes battles not fun, then people will stop showing up. Does anyone really want to win a battle that is 37 attackers against 12 defenders?
DeletedUser
The strongest thing that the Legion and the Confederates have going for us is that the people who turn out for the battles are willing to listen to the battle leader and follow directions. Most of these players come from other towns, but they put the goal of the team above the goal of the individual. I know that I can ask for a volunteer to move from a safe shooting spot to a dangerous spot taking fire and always find multiple players willing to put themselves in danger to help secure the win. While gear is beneficial, having a large group move as one to direct fire in large numbers is what wins battles.
I hope Bulls Bend, the Elite, and Sudden Valley can rally their troops so we can return to 55 round battles.
I hope Bulls Bend, the Elite, and Sudden Valley can rally their troops so we can return to 55 round battles.
DeletedUser
I have to agree with kayak on that note, I have been showing up into fort battles less. Because there're so many fake and stuff, and I don't have enough time to figure out which is real and which is not. And I'm sure a lot of people at bb and sv are feeling the same; therefore, the turn-out rate is decreasing on both sides.
DeletedUser
oh contraire
Kayak--i don't think you have ever seen my name on an attack in this world. I don't make the attacks or set the strategy. I am just a grunt. I haven't even been in a bb town in a month--trying to level up to keep up with you guys.
I don't much like counterattacks either.
"The bottom line is one-on-one, full battle--you will win." You say this based on what? Look at westforts.com and go through the battle history. If you ignore small battles here's what you see for attacks by you and your allies:
In the last month the closest to a full attack was 69:75 Sudden Valley attacking Black Beauty.
In the month before that, Bulls Bend had a 90:84 on medium Fort Last Stand which was defended against. Sudden Valley took a large fort in a 140:65 battle (only battle of the day). Bulls Bend lost an attack on Fort Redemption that was 120:112 (multiple attacks were called).
So, by my count on medium and large forts attacks, you have not out-numbered the defenders in 1 battle in the last month. In the last 2 months you have outnumbered defenders 3 times. Only 1 of those battles were the attackers maxed out, and you won that battle. The others you had a 6 man advantage when a full battle would give you a 16 man advantage. And, you had a 8 man advantage when a full battle would give you a 20 man advantage.
People play this game for fun. If your strategy makes battles not fun, then people will stop showing up. Does anyone really want to win a battle that is 37 attackers against 12 defenders?
Kayak--i don't think you have ever seen my name on an attack in this world. I don't make the attacks or set the strategy. I am just a grunt. I haven't even been in a bb town in a month--trying to level up to keep up with you guys.
DeletedUser
You guys don't read very well i guess. I am agreeing with you!
DeletedUser
Well i have to admit this '3-way attack' is my idea.
As for you "it takes the fun out of the game" people... tough!!
I have had 5 top people from our alliance come to me in the last fortnight saying the Legion dominance has taken all the fun away and so they are leaving this world. There are 2 sides to this.
If it works, it hasnt yet, then we shall continue to do it until we have reclaimed many forts. Then we shall begin to fight properly again.
As for you "it takes the fun out of the game" people... tough!!
I have had 5 top people from our alliance come to me in the last fortnight saying the Legion dominance has taken all the fun away and so they are leaving this world. There are 2 sides to this.
If it works, it hasnt yet, then we shall continue to do it until we have reclaimed many forts. Then we shall begin to fight properly again.
DeletedUser
You guys don't read very well i guess. I am agreeing with you!
Well, then perhaps your posts would make more sense in your town's forum. Because they obviously do not agree with you.
DeletedUser
Lets just say the Legion wins.
DeletedUser
Well it didnt work.
Nothing to do with Legion dominance just an absolute travesty on our part.
Myself and JK did all we could but only 3-4 people were willing to make the necessary sacrifice to nail the coffin shut...
... anyone fancy a 2 man fort battle!!?
Nothing to do with Legion dominance just an absolute travesty on our part.
Myself and JK did all we could but only 3-4 people were willing to make the necessary sacrifice to nail the coffin shut...
... anyone fancy a 2 man fort battle!!?
DeletedUser
The legion rules on side and The elite, SV, and BB owns another.
DeletedUser
Well it didnt work.
Nothing to do with Legion dominance just an absolute travesty on our part.
Myself and JK did all we could but only 3-4 people were willing to make the necessary sacrifice to nail the coffin shut...
... anyone fancy a 2 man fort battle!!?
well--there were more than 2, but not enough!
DeletedUser
Well, then perhaps your posts would make more sense in your town's forum. Because they obviously do not agree with you.
Kayak--how many battles did BB initiate? And--I was in chaos until today shopping, so whatever bro. I have tried my best to find some dedicated people to have good, fair battles, but that's not working. So, I guess I'll just go back to what I'm good at--dueling. I can get my fort fix in 12!
DeletedUser
JK - I know you were out of town for a while. I'm just saying, I'm in agreement, but you should talk with your town. I doesn't matter much that BB only called one of the 6 attacks that were called within 2 hours, it was obviously planned as a multiple attack and only 14 attackers showed up. I'm not trying to say anything bad against you, just saying your preaching to the choir here.
I see we have 3 battles in 1.5 hours tomorrow, hopefully we have enough attending so that there are actual battles.
As for today's battles, it was nice that there was only 2 battles of the 6 that were just a complete waste of people's time. So, it wasn't as bad as it could have been. Though, I think calling it a 6-way attack would be more accurate than saying a 3-way attack.
I still think you would have been better off getting everyone together and motivated for one attack. At Fort Peaceful the attackers had a 43:53 advantage at the start. At first this seems like it might be a decent advantage, but in reality it's not. This is only very slightly better than 42:50 that a full small fort battle would have. But, in a medium fort the towers and walls get a better bonus, and there are more wall spots for the defenders to shoot from. I'd say a maxed small fort battle is easier for the attackers than a 43:53 medium fort battle, where the towers and walls are built a lot.
I see we have 3 battles in 1.5 hours tomorrow, hopefully we have enough attending so that there are actual battles.
As for today's battles, it was nice that there was only 2 battles of the 6 that were just a complete waste of people's time. So, it wasn't as bad as it could have been. Though, I think calling it a 6-way attack would be more accurate than saying a 3-way attack.
I still think you would have been better off getting everyone together and motivated for one attack. At Fort Peaceful the attackers had a 43:53 advantage at the start. At first this seems like it might be a decent advantage, but in reality it's not. This is only very slightly better than 42:50 that a full small fort battle would have. But, in a medium fort the towers and walls get a better bonus, and there are more wall spots for the defenders to shoot from. I'd say a maxed small fort battle is easier for the attackers than a 43:53 medium fort battle, where the towers and walls are built a lot.
DeletedUser
I was supposed to have double or even tripple the people head to my fort battle, but then their forts were suddenly attacked less than an hour after I declared and it ended up being a 22 vs 19 battle, and we only had around 13 onliners.
DeletedUser
Winning fort battles isn't rocket science. Initiate ONE battle, have a plan, max it with as many onliners in chat as possible, then execute your plan. You guys have plenty of people to do this. Sure, nobody wins every battle but you will sure as hell win more this way than calling a bunch of battles and hoping no defenders show up. I just don't understand the logic of denying every player a decent battle just to win a fort.
The one problem I see with the Bulls and Elite becoming a cohesive fort team is the egos involved. Lots of trash talk and excuses but no one has risen as a true leader. That means there is no one the towns can get behind and believe in. Early on we chose Kayak as our leader and that was that, period. He is not only the battle leader for Legion, he is like the supreme commander of our allies as well. He leads the battles and we win. We win not only because of his strategy but because we believe we will win if we work as a team. If the folks in Legion can put egos aside and have a leader then any town can. Arrogance and pride should not ruin good towns.
Watching battles in w11 it is almost always like a re-run on tv. Bliggity, M3D, Goodfeather, and Mbrown hiding in the back trying to snipe and get xp. All of these guys have a lot of health and are town founders! They should be LEADING! Is anything more funny than Bliggity with over 3000 health hide behind a guy with 700? Probably not. Anyway, yes, by leading that means occasionally you will get ko'd early but you will also do the unimaginable, you will win battles! Stop with the excuses, pick a leader, believe in him/her, back him/her up, and give a real effort. That is how you can succeed.
The one problem I see with the Bulls and Elite becoming a cohesive fort team is the egos involved. Lots of trash talk and excuses but no one has risen as a true leader. That means there is no one the towns can get behind and believe in. Early on we chose Kayak as our leader and that was that, period. He is not only the battle leader for Legion, he is like the supreme commander of our allies as well. He leads the battles and we win. We win not only because of his strategy but because we believe we will win if we work as a team. If the folks in Legion can put egos aside and have a leader then any town can. Arrogance and pride should not ruin good towns.
Watching battles in w11 it is almost always like a re-run on tv. Bliggity, M3D, Goodfeather, and Mbrown hiding in the back trying to snipe and get xp. All of these guys have a lot of health and are town founders! They should be LEADING! Is anything more funny than Bliggity with over 3000 health hide behind a guy with 700? Probably not. Anyway, yes, by leading that means occasionally you will get ko'd early but you will also do the unimaginable, you will win battles! Stop with the excuses, pick a leader, believe in him/her, back him/her up, and give a real effort. That is how you can succeed.
DeletedUser16628
Nail on the head Pardrus,NAIL ON THE HEAD.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
I think lumpy may be over selling my role a little bit. Early on I led a lot of the battles from our side. But as we have gone along a number of other people have stepped up as well to lead battles.
In the end battles are won because of teamwork and because the players are willing to work together and sacrifice for each other. It usually has far less to do with strategy than it does people being willing to work together. I can probably count on one hand the number of times a battle has been won because of strategy that goes beyond what is fairly standard practice.
westoves already said it too. It is not about level or gear, and it's really not even primarily about strategy. It's a matter of having people willing to work together for the team goal.
In the end battles are won because of teamwork and because the players are willing to work together and sacrifice for each other. It usually has far less to do with strategy than it does people being willing to work together. I can probably count on one hand the number of times a battle has been won because of strategy that goes beyond what is fairly standard practice.
westoves already said it too. It is not about level or gear, and it's really not even primarily about strategy. It's a matter of having people willing to work together for the team goal.
Share: