1Big Chief
Well-Known Member
Previous thread closed by going "off-topic".. so here is The correct one.. stay on-topic.. ALL
http://forum.the-west.net/showthread.php?t=45829&page=8
As Brought Up by Futurama
Futurama.. finally.. someone who is thinking on the same lines as me.. finally.. but lets just turn it around a little.
Hypothetically.. (others... look up the word if needed)
Lets say.. (as I've been shouting on the roof tops).. lets say that in a million to 1
I get an army to attack an alliance.. not a fort.. but an alliance in general (but dealt with in fort battles)
But my army is 400 people and yours is 200.. now I attack a fort.. and only 140 of us (say a large fort) are allowed in.. tell me..
..must the other warriors sit on the hill and watch while their alliance fights.. or will it be acceptable that they can move on to the next fort.. and fill that one too
Ok.. but now you don't have the numbers to fill that fort.. maybe you can get about 40 more defenders
But because the odds are against you.. this might/will be construed as a multi
What is so wrong with having 3 attacks (FILLED ATTACKS).. its not the attackers problem if the enemy can't defend it.. its the defenders problem.. not true ?
Now.. I have asked numerous people this question.. but NEVER get a decent answer.. cause they steer off course again & again
So Futurama.. are you reasonable enough to give a decent answer to a valid question
You yourself brought it up.. as the attacker.. now answer it as the defender
Others are welcome to answer.. but please keep the thread ON TOPIC - and part of the Topic... is answer the question
As much as I hate the idea of worthless multi's.. I fear there is no other option.. if we play by your rules (TW+v2)
Can someone.. decently.. answer the question.. and that is "Is this a legitimate battle.. or a wasteful Multi ?"
Thank you
http://forum.the-west.net/showthread.php?t=45829&page=8
As Brought Up by Futurama
Now, look at it the other day. Say the smaller alliance has 150 active members and the enemy alliance has 300 (these numbers are not meant to be accurate, just an example). Both these numbers are enough to max any size of fort on its own. However, when the smaller alliance chooses to use multi battles, they're giving the larger alliance the chance to utilise their number advantage. Say you attack two mediums and two smalls. Out of the four battles, the alliance with 300 active fort battlers would have the numbers to max all four of these battles, while your alliance of 150 members could only max two of them at best (a medium and a small, or two smalls with members left over for the remaining two battles). A more realistic scenario is that the smaller alliance would have a low attendance at all battles, or concentrate on one battle, either way would not have an effect due to the big alliance's numbers covering each fort adequately, not to mention moving numbers to one fort when they see the majority of the enemy congregating there. I know it's not realistic to expect 300 active fort fighters, but this is just an example and its principle still comes in to play; the bigger alliance may not be able to max all forts but it will be able to get more fighters at each one.
What do you think gives you a better chance of a victory? 100 vs 84 in a medium, or 50 vs 84 and 20 vs 42 in a medium/small multi?
Then you can take into consideration that the larger alliance is, in theory, more capable of launching multi battles of greater magnitude. So if they choose to retaliate the numbers would end up along the lines of 15 vs 42 at each of the big alliance's defences and then 50 vs 30 at the big alliance's attack. Wow, now the small alliances has lost two attacks and a defence just because they had in their heads that it would be easier to attack two forts rather than one when they don't have the numbers to fill them both, than have an even chance of taking a fort in a one on one battle.
Futurama.. finally.. someone who is thinking on the same lines as me.. finally.. but lets just turn it around a little.
Hypothetically.. (others... look up the word if needed)
Lets say.. (as I've been shouting on the roof tops).. lets say that in a million to 1
I get an army to attack an alliance.. not a fort.. but an alliance in general (but dealt with in fort battles)
But my army is 400 people and yours is 200.. now I attack a fort.. and only 140 of us (say a large fort) are allowed in.. tell me..
..must the other warriors sit on the hill and watch while their alliance fights.. or will it be acceptable that they can move on to the next fort.. and fill that one too
Ok.. but now you don't have the numbers to fill that fort.. maybe you can get about 40 more defenders
But because the odds are against you.. this might/will be construed as a multi
What is so wrong with having 3 attacks (FILLED ATTACKS).. its not the attackers problem if the enemy can't defend it.. its the defenders problem.. not true ?
Now.. I have asked numerous people this question.. but NEVER get a decent answer.. cause they steer off course again & again
So Futurama.. are you reasonable enough to give a decent answer to a valid question
You yourself brought it up.. as the attacker.. now answer it as the defender
Others are welcome to answer.. but please keep the thread ON TOPIC - and part of the Topic... is answer the question
Please note ALL (with opinion) .. I am not for multi's.. (but seriously was).. as I found out when Jakkals went Bos.. how tiring it can be .. and for little reward
BUT.. for the life of me.. I can't understand why I can't attack more forts at the same time.. and filling them.. (strictly filling them).. but not allowed to do so..
.. because the enemy MIGHT not match us and thus just because TW+v2 say so
As much as I hate the idea of worthless multi's.. I fear there is no other option.. if we play by your rules (TW+v2)
Can someone.. decently.. answer the question.. and that is "Is this a legitimate battle.. or a wasteful Multi ?"
Thank you
Last edited: