How would you randomize medium fort battles?

Bad Billy Jack

Well-Known Member
We mostly always dig medium forts, so only randomize mediums would make it easier for Inno. I'll start the ball rolling with my initial suggestions.

1) Complete the Attacker Starting Ring ~ Allows attackers to start north also. Also makes it harder for defenders to block north with a two-sided attack.

2) Get rid of the Gate ~ South starts are not done since defenders have too much los. This will allow attackers to attack from north or south, instead of the current always going north (to avoid the gate).

3) Obstacles for Attackers ~ This could be as simple as random closed sectors to rocks/lakes attackers have to go around & hide behind.

4) Closed fort sectors ~ A closed tower or wall sections that defenders have to deal with.

#3 & #4 would be unknown fog of war situations until the battle begins. Anyone in closed sectors are bumped!

5) Make forts square ~ Again, allows random attacks. Attackers also go north now cuz the north wall has no gate & more can mount. The pathway to the flag is also shorter when we go north & mount.

6) Starting Ring is a no shoot zone ~ Guns just won't cover the distance. Allows regrouping of attackers before they approach the fort. Currently, last players to sign up get the gate spots & die quickly, as do the losers in stacking situations. However, if defenders leave the fort to snipe, they can reach the distance & shoot at this ring.

7) Offliners who do not set targets do not auto rush the flag. They just sit there. Since they are in the no shoot zone, defenders have to go out & get them. Also, I think part of the reason attackers do not set targets is that they planned to be there online but are late to come online. In these cases where they are a little late, they would not come online & find themselves immediately dead already.

Some of these suggested changes are aimed specifically to make it harder to FF offline. Like a closed tower bumps all its players inside the fort & if offline, pretty useless. Other suggestions are meant to lenghten the battle.
Last edited:


Well-Known Member
1) No. This only helps attackers. In anything but a small it would benefit everyone to start in the north. You change fights to having a few options which are at least semi-balanced to 1 superior option. It also means every alliance would have to have numerous high health advents just to stay competitive against a north attack.

2) No. The gate is a useful strategy option as it is now. Having no gate would make it just like every other side and make strategies the same on every side again. All you would add is improved movement for attackers which would make the most useful strategy to be movement.

3) No. In any size fort you would destroy any attempt at early strategy by the attackers if you closed sectors that they lined up in. This also keeps attackers from getting a LOS advantage because there would be less room to bunch up unless they went east or west ruining offliner targeting. They would have to stay in LOS of 3 or 4 towers much longer.

4) No. Any closure would ruin movement for defenders. When "chasing" or "circling" with attackers, the defenders would be unable to keep up. This would make movement the best strategy.

5) No. Instead you Keep people from needing to move. Now they can just line up on one side and stay there. There is nowhere to move to seek an advantage so no need for movement.

6) No. I just cant see how this would be useful. Defenders giving up their bonus to jump on the ground wouldnt happen until the end. With the exception of the first round which would give a very small advantage to the attackers, any benefit I could see to this would be for the defenders in a fight and they would be numerous.

7) Why? Most of them already double click and dont rush anyway if they dont set a target.

Some of these suggested changes are aimed specifically to make it harder to FF offline. Like a closed tower bumps all its players inside the fort & if offline, pretty useless. Other suggestions are meant to lenghten the battle.
Almost all of the changes would either limit strategy options (either through the actual ideas or because you change the options to only 1 "best" option) or shorten battles.

I just dont see how they would have the effect you intended at all. The only one that I could see accomplishing your goal of "making it harder to FF offline" would be blocking towers and walls (4) and that doesnt effect both sides.

I ran a through fights in my head picturing all of these implemented at the same fight and fights would very often come down to luck instead of strategy.

(remember this is with ALL implemented)

The Attackers

Offliners would be unable to target. Towers and walls would have a chance to be not mountable ruining offline strategy. (LUCK)

Offliners not targeting would be useless since they would be unable to shoot.

Movement would depend on sectors being blocked. It could take longer to move to try to get an LOS advantage. (LUCK)

Attackers would be bumped into 3 or 4 tower LOS longer depending on the situation and size. (LUCK)

The Defenders

Many High HP Advents would become a requirement. If they moved out early to block sectors you could keep many defenders either not shooting or in 4 tower LOS.

With no walls or even missing 1 tower the attackers could focus on 1 tower if they did get lucky enough to be able to bunch up on one side with limited guns and a bonus against them (LUCK)

Sniping could be blocked by a blocked sector limiting LOS. (LUCK)

Circling with attackers would be limited by which sectors were blocked in your way. (LUCK)

There are probably more but my head hurts. Just want to show that you lose strategy and win or loss comes down to luck.
Last edited by a moderator:

Bad Billy Jack

Well-Known Member
Bumping this thread since it now appears players are more interested in changing fort battles & it is back in the news.

Please add your suggestions!