Fort Battles

Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser

IC bank own forts? ive only ever seen them as allies....you leearn something new every day :)
 

DeletedUser

Roland Deschain said:
oh no I agree and we have both excused actions by parties on both our sides in the past
but that was within the first week of the treaty being signed
its been over a month now and my point is, she won't even acknowledge that she broke the treaty; so with that attitude, if more attacks are forthcoming from her in this manner, then it really leaves us two choices: end the treaty, or kick ICBank out
Click to expand...

i honestly would honestly rather help defend TW against multi-fort attacks (such as the ones miestas launches) than have to end this treaty. i have seen some excellent fort battles that have been a result of this treaty, and i would hate to lose having these kinds of battles.
 

DeletedUser

kman288 said:
...i have seen some excellent fort battles that have been a result of this treaty, and i would hate to lose having these kinds of battles.
Click to expand...

Tell me of such fort battles please. As i do not remember ANY. Practically no fort battles were initiated by treaty members on each other after signing it.
Tell me if i'm wrong. There is a list to refresh your memory: http://www.westforts.com/en1/battles

As i remember LD is planning "big attack" for almost 2 months now - havent seen any coming.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser14006

Then what is wrong with yourself putting as much effort into a straight up 1v1 battle instead of multi nonsense?
 

DeletedUser

Derek1982 said:
Then what is wrong with yourself putting as much effort into a straight up 1v1 battle instead of multi nonsense?
Click to expand...

As i've said it before:
1. this treaty aim is not to have "good" fort battles, but to limit fort battle numbers and keep forts that alliances already have. So be truthfull about this. If you still thing differently - check how many fort battles treaty members initiated on each other after signing it. Good fort battles only can be fought when there is a chance of winning 1 on 1 fort battles except rare occasions usually end up in slaughter of attackers if defenders gather. If you notice - in last 2 months Miestas most of the forts took in 1 on 1 fort battles so i think i know more or less what i'm talking about. If anyone still thinks that they can take for example a big fort in 1 on 1 battle - they are always free to attack Miestas fort as many times as they want to - so i could prove you wrong or you prove me wrong and have our fort.

2. In addition of limiting fort battles this treaty takes half of the fun from fort battles. This is like both opponents would play chess with only half of their figures. Picking right forts and right times to attack is as much important as what sides do in fort battle itself. Remove this element from fort battles - and you remove half of the fun.
 

DeletedUser5677

3. Miestasers make good ducks fer shootin' lately. Plugged me over 6000 damage over at ft valk. yep you boys keep a comin'.:cool: it's Mies season.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser544

lokiju said:
As i've said it before:
1. this treaty aim is not to have "good" fort battles, but to limit fort battle numbers and keep forts that alliances already have. So be truthfull about this. If you still thing differently - check how many fort battles treaty members initiated on each other after signing it. Good fort battles only can be fought when there is a chance of winning 1 on 1 fort battles except rare occasions usually end up in slaughter of attackers if defenders gather. If you notice - in last 2 months Miestas most of the forts took in 1 on 1 fort battles so i think i know more or less what i'm talking about. If anyone still thinks that they can take for example a big fort in 1 on 1 battle - they are always free to attack Miestas fort as many times as they want to - so i could prove you wrong or you prove me wrong and have our fort.

2. In addition of limiting fort battles this treaty takes half of the fun from fort battles. This is like both opponents would play chess with only half of their figures. Picking right forts and right times to attack is as much important as what sides do in fort battle itself. Remove this element from fort battles - and you remove half of the fun.
Click to expand...

I must say man, I don't think that's quite accurate
yes, the treaty can be seen that way
but you never saw fit to sign it so of course you will have a different opinion about it
3 months ago, before we signed the treaty, I sent emails around to try to get the world to rise up against TW/SB and I received no responses... including the email I sent you lokiju
the only way the multi battles would have been fun, in my opinion, is if we truly had an "uprising" type of scenario play out against TW/SB
but that didn't happen because everyone is too inactive
there are just such few good fort fighters; and Derek (and my) point is that mutli battles spread t hose good fort fighters out, instead of letting them concentrate on both sides at one good battle

regarding how often battles are declared, I would argue that battles had been stagnating well before the treaty was signed; inactivity is and continues to be a problem for everyone

I think now that you have taken some forts back, you should bring Miestas on board with the treaty and then we could have some truly epic large fort battles with both sides maxed out
 

DeletedUser14006

Roland Deschain said:
I think now that you have taken some forts back, you should bring Miestas on board with the treaty and then we could have some truly epic large fort battles with both sides maxed out
Click to expand...

Well said Roland, I would extend this offer too and hope you will come on board so we can have some great battles again.

The alternative is we continue to play this out where you multi, multi, multi and take a few then in a few months we multi, multi, multi and take a few back.

Nobody wins and the fun disappears, will leave it up to you lokiju - your move.
 

DeletedUser1161

So what was the go with the Steeler nation fort battle? There was players from all alliances on both sides :blink:
 

DeletedUser544

kingjames said he was trying to get ownership away from an inactive town in their empire
 

DeletedUser1161

Well at least it made for an interesting fort battle report (standing side by side with people you normally shoot at :))
 

mi35

Well-Known Member
Fort Last Stage battle - 50 attackers, 42 defenders. Most people online and pretty well coordinated. End result - 19 turns, all defenders killed, attackers lose only 19... What's up guys? Does it mean we reached the state when no towns is able to keep the fort unless attackers' tactical errors or defenders have full squad of players with pumped up fort fight skills? (tumble)
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser

attackers have learned superior attack skills in the area of small forts. medium to large forts however, are much more difficult.
 

DeletedUser14006

kman288 said:
attackers have learned superior attack skills in the area of small forts. medium to large forts however, are much more difficult.
Click to expand...

You certainly did discover a gem of a tactic for those small battles, put it into action on world 12 today and only lost 8 attackers from a maxed out battle.

(tumble)
 

One Armed Ninja

Well-Known Member
mi35 said:
Fort Last Stage battle - 50 attackers, 42 defenders. Most people online and pretty well coordinated. End result - 19 turns, all defenders killed, attackers lose only 19... What's up guys? Does it mean we reached the state when no towns is able to keep the fort unless attackers' tactical errors or defenders have full squad of players with pumped up fort fight skills? (tumble)
Click to expand...

There weren't many online, AND they kept filling the soldiers tower when I said bail :(

Apart from that they worked quite well, thet attackers just.... won.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top