Strategy? Not Really

[DeletedUser]

Strategy refers to a plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal. The word is of military origin, deriving from the Greek word strategos, which roughly translates as general.

In military usage strategy is distinct from tactics, which are concerned with the conduct of an engagement, while strategy is concerned with how different engagements are linked. How a battle is fought is a matter of tactics: the terms and conditions that it is fought on and whether it should be fought at all is a matter of strategy, which is part of the four levels of warfare: political goals or grand strategy, strategy, operations, and tactics.

That said, can someone explain how ANYONE can impliment strategy in this game. The only strategy I have seen displayed herin is what I have lovenly named "Smash & Bash". It has been explained to me, adnauseum, that it is SOP for most Alliances for the larger members to "clear out" the troops and defenses of a weaker player for their weaker player to take over. I submit that you can give any idiot a few thousand troops armed with ax handles to take a few hundred troops armed with musket loaders and see him the victor but what did that person learn? You have simply given your idiot a few thousand more troops with ax handles. Hence the term "Smash & Bash".

Methinks, if one were to use their more powerful members to keep others off their players back while he/she takes their own town, you end up with an Alliance of warriors that is stronger, player for player than the "Smah & Bash" crowd.

Your thoughts on this?

 

[DeletedUser]

I totally agree, Letting the less experienced players learn is far better than handing them Polis' on a platter. I would much rather fight an inexperienced player with 5 cities than an experienced player with 2. Power without knowledge is soon to be lost.

 

[DeletedUser]

hmmmmm, i dont really know much about how most alliances do actually manage wars, and am also forbidden by my alliance leaders from comparing the dark union to anything here on the public forums to avoid conflicts arising due to flame wars.

That being said, i can see a range of different ways for strategy to be implemented. You would need a strong and centralized leadership to do so of course, and a small amount of members, so i doubt we would be seeing anything like this from SF except on a small local scale.

I'm not going to say any of these methods here on the public forum since a) my alliance will probably use them and i dont want to give anything away, and b) you really need to figure them out for yourself.

 

[DeletedUser]

I disagree with this. The reason I like the game is because it involves careful strategy.

What you're talking about is tactics -- winning battles. That's often about brute strength. Although there are plenty of other factors as well -- timing, dodging attacks, triggering militia, army versus navy, city set up, etc. There's more interesting tactics involved if you're really playing like a team and not a solo player. And you should be. If not, we're taking your city.

Strategy is deciding who to attack and when. Which alliance to hit and when. Which players to recruit. Which to drop. How to build up your forces. How to organize your alliance. How to cooperate on attacks.

The fact is a small group of 20 people can destroy an alliance of 100 in this game in less than a week. The stakes are high -- lose and you're elimianted. The best players win. Not the most players. That's strategy.

The reason you're not seeing strategy is too many people think this is a single-player game. Those people will lose their cities to alliances that play strategically and aggressively.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well in SN We don't just hand cities over to weaker members we absolutely demoralize enemies to the point of surrender then we take the village however NEWER Alliances seem to be taking this tactic. Any-who.... Clearing Villages is fun what you may be experiencing is not a strategy to just take your village but a coordinate attack across the board. After all, all is fair in love and war. if you don't like a specific tactic taken and you cant avoid it. they make a button under settings that says "delete account". I do encourage anyone who's not having fun in this game to use that button. But that is just my humble opinion.

 

[DeletedUser]

Strategy refers to a plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal. The word is of military origin, deriving from the Greek word strategos, which roughly translates as general.

In military usage strategy is distinct from tactics, which are concerned with the conduct of an engagement, while strategy is concerned with how different engagements are linked. How a battle is fought is a matter of tactics: the terms and conditions that it is fought on and whether it should be fought at all is a matter of strategy, which is part of the four levels of warfare: political goals or grand strategy, strategy, operations, and tactics.

That said, can someone explain how ANYONE can impliment strategy in this game. The only strategy I have seen displayed herin is what I have lovenly named "Smash & Bash". It has been explained to me, adnauseum, that it is SOP for most Alliances for the larger members to "clear out" the troops and defenses of a weaker player for their weaker player to take over. I submit that you can give any idiot a few thousand troops armed with ax handles to take a few hundred troops armed with musket loaders and see him the victor but what did that person learn? You have simply given your idiot a few thousand more troops with ax handles. Hence the term "Smash & Bash".

Methinks, if one were to use their more powerful members to keep others off their players back while he/she takes their own town, you end up with an Alliance of warriors that is stronger, player for player than the "Smah & Bash" crowd.

Your thoughts on this?

strategy is getting an alliance to throw away all thier troops at the beggingin of the war to stacked but easily accesible villages Giving everyone light casualties despite targets having level 20 walls sound familiar

 

[DeletedUser]

This game is all about strategery!

 

[DeletedUser]

I totally agree, Letting the less experienced players learn is far better than handing them Polis' on a platter. I would much rather fight an inexperienced player with 5 cities than an experienced player with 2. Power without knowledge is soon to be lost.

i disagre with this actually i let my guys learn when they have 3 cities. first two are freebies. That way they can afford to pay the price of learning without slowing down too much.

 

[DeletedUser]

Strategy: you know you have done it right when the enemy alliance is looking around at the wrecks of their ships and saying: "What happened?"

 

[DeletedUser]

There is only one strategy in war, have a bigger stick then the other guy.
That aside weaker people always follow the strong, in life and in war, and they always get a share of the reward, that's life.

 

[DeletedUser]

blah

blah


blah


That said, can someone explain how ANYONE can impliment strategy in this game. The only strategy I have seen displayed herin is what I have lovenly named "Smash & Bash". It has been explained to me, adnauseum, that it is SOP for most Alliances for the larger members to "clear out" the troops and defenses of a weaker player for their weaker player to take over. I submit that you can give any idiot a few thousand troops armed with ax handles to take a few hundred troops armed with musket loaders and see him the victor but what did that person learn? You have simply given your idiot a few thousand more troops with ax handles. Hence the term "Smash & Bash".

Methinks, if one were to use their more powerful members to keep others off their players back while he/she takes their own town, you end up with an Alliance of warriors that is stronger, player for player than the "Smah & Bash" crowd.

Your thoughts on this?

Well, giving new players free polis is actually a decent strategy, just because your smaller doesn't mean you suck, I think you pointed this out only using a different point in this post as well, so your sort of contradicting yourself. I've known first time players (on other games) who ended up being better than I was, so even if it's their first time playing some can be taught easily to be a pro at this game, and giving this player your teaching a free big city is a great way to start him out, with a huge first city he can build his army faster, making it easier to gain bp and conquer a city on his own.

Plus sometimes big players just clear others for the bp, and then when they've cleared the city they say "Hey this guy is cleared, who wants him?"

 

[DeletedUser]

Joining the discussion from alpha...

The 'smash and bash' strategy is proven, at the start. The stronger players need culture to expand, and thus run around killing everything they can get their hands on. If they can help crack open a few good cities for their slower comrades (with their 'freebie' 2 conquers), and in the process gain enough culture for their own next conquest, it makes sense for them to do so. Alternatively, if you wish to unnecessarily keep your larger players out of the business of the smaller players, your larger players grow slower -> harder to get culture, and your slower players grow slower -> having to spend time trying to break targets on their own... odds are they'd have to take smaller targets too.

And this doesn't even apply to 'war'... this discussion is more or less focused on conquering strategy during the 'noob bashing' stage of the game.

 

[DeletedUser]

That is because those of us taking part in a war don't want to admit our tactics for everyone to use.

 

[DeletedUser]

That is because those of us taking part in a war don't want to admit our tactics for everyone to use.

I'll gladly share mine.

1.Send a lot of light ships to clear his navy.

2.Closely follow with a couple land nukes to clear his ground forces.

3.Conquer.

4.Support.

5............

Profit....?

 

[DeletedUser]

Mine:

1: send a spy (Will most definitely fail (I broke a mirror last year ))

2:resend lots of spies

3:send naval

4:send ground

5:Send very well timed colony

6: forget the support because I was too lazy to stay awake

7: loses the city.

Dakkar's guide is here for you people

 

[DeletedUser]

Incomming!!!!

Well, giving new players free polis is actually a decent strategy, just because your smaller doesn't mean you suck, I think you pointed this out only using a different point in this post as well, so your sort of contradicting yourself. I've known first time players (on other games) who ended up being better than I was, so even if it's their first time playing some can be taught easily to be a pro at this game, and giving this player your teaching a free big city is a great way to start him out, with a huge first city he can build his army faster, making it easier to gain bp and conquer a city on his own.

Plus sometimes big players just clear others for the bp, and then when they've cleared the city they say "Hey this guy is cleared, who wants him?"

Since you posted the blah, blah, blah, it leads me to believe you did not read the info and if you did you would know that the portion you used as an example of me contridicting myself was about tactics, not strategy. Giving a player a city on a platter is a tactic, and a poor one at that, for nothing is learned. Loosing that city was a huge educational experience for me. If those tactics were used on me by others now, I would be able to hand them their heads. Due to the tactics used against me has lessened my animosity at the inellagent assault, improved my game and strengthend another Alliance as a result.

The battle points being seperate from the ranking system is just another flaw in the game that would be easily sovled withh a more complex calculation of the rankings. Similar to the lack of a "Fog of War" here. I like the game to a point and the games frorm their competitor are inherantly (sp?) better but these guy provide a superior priemum system. Maybe if they tried different variences in beta worlds, they would see that some of the suggestions provided them are actually good ideas that would be benifical to improving the quality of their product.

If you disagree with my thoughts, I have no problem with that but the combacks of "stupid" and "noobs" is simply the last resort of the inane. How about a little intelligent discourse instead of petty insults.

 

[DeletedUser]

No war has been fought without tactics being used, everyone has there own strategy's at the start of the game but some are better than others in the way they think and the way they play. ro:

 

[DeletedUser]

Since you posted the blah, blah, blah, it leads me to believe you did not read the info and if you did you would know that the portion you used as an example of me contridicting myself was about tactics, not strategy. Giving a player a city on a platter is a tactic, and a poor one at that, for nothing is learned. Loosing that city was a huge educational experience for me. If those tactics were used on me by others now, I would be able to hand them their heads. Due to the tactics used against me has lessened my animosity at the inellagent assault, improved my game and strengthend another Alliance as a result.

The battle points being seperate from the ranking system is just another flaw in the game that would be easily sovled withh a more complex calculation of the rankings. Similar to the lack of a "Fog of War" here. I like the game to a point and the games frorm their competitor are inherantly (sp?) better but these guy provide a superior priemum system. Maybe if they tried different variences in beta worlds, they would see that some of the suggestions provided them are actually good ideas that would be benifical to improving the quality of their product.

If you disagree with my thoughts, I have no problem with that but the combacks of "stupid" and "noobs" is simply the last resort of the inane. How about a little intelligent discourse instead of petty insults.

I said "blah blah blah" because the first part of your post is pointless, obviously you can't have a real strategy in a game like this, You can't send an attack and say "20 of you cause a diversion here, and the rest loop around back and do this". it's only "send these troops here and if you've got more you win" the only strategy you can implement would be timing support, and the build of those troops sent plus research in the academy.

As for giving someone a city, I did give you a good reason as to why it's a good tactic, if you don't believe me then go check my post again, you seem to have just stopped reading my post at "blah bl"

And as for ranking, who cares? Are you upset that since you got conquered you lost ranking yet your BPD is still high? Take what you said you gained from being rimmed and climb back up the ranking if it's that big a deal to ya, if not, stop trying to complain about the tactic that took you down (which worked obviously)

 

[DeletedUser]

Right then ... My point of view Giving a low player a city is like giving France a city during war...Germans approach city ....Germans walk into city ....French act like jar jar binks "My Give up" ... Germans walk away with city in tow. But if it is a well trained low level player...it would be like giving America a city during a time of war..."What the h€!! no troops here city get d'ed up and whack them " Quite literally it would depend on the skill of the player as to if i would help them take their first city or not...most likely i would but if they were weak and i knew it i wouldn't.

 

[DeletedUser]

Since you posted the blah, blah, blah, it leads me to believe you did not read the info and if you did you would know that the portion you used as an example of me contridicting myself was about tactics, not strategy. Giving a player a city on a platter is a tactic, and a poor one at that, for nothing is learned. Loosing that city was a huge educational experience for me. If those tactics were used on me by others now, I would be able to hand them their heads. Due to the tactics used against me has lessened my animosity at the inellagent assault, improved my game and strengthend another Alliance as a result.

The battle points being seperate from the ranking system is just another flaw in the game that would be easily sovled withh a more complex calculation of the rankings. Similar to the lack of a "Fog of War" here. I like the game to a point and the games frorm their competitor are inherantly (sp?) better but these guy provide a superior priemum system. Maybe if they tried different variences in beta worlds, they would see that some of the suggestions provided them are actually good ideas that would be benifical to improving the quality of their product.

If you disagree with my thoughts, I have no problem with that but the combacks of "stupid" and "noobs" is simply the last resort of the inane. How about a little intelligent discourse instead of petty insults.

In retaliation I would have to agree with occult, thought it does depend on the player. I am simply clearing cities just for the fun of it. And I would not mind giving it to another player unless it was destined to be my farm. I think your just butt-hurt from being rimmed.