AnninetForces
Please do find and bookmark our attacking log
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x161FqZyCFWtI1q5AhZ54yOecVdLX4BhSrbzrEaipLQ/edit?usp=sharing

Who should attack first?

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Who should attack first?

13% 13% 
[ 1 ]
13% 13% 
[ 1 ]
74% 74% 
[ 6 ]
 
Total Votes : 8

Who should attack first?

Post by DSM on Fri May 15, 2015 10:23 am

Earlier today we were discussing attacking order, some of us thought low levels should take out key defences to allow our heavy-hitters to make bigger dents. Others thought that our heavy hitters could "pave an easier path" for the lower level players.

Who do you think should be first AND why? Please post a message when you vote.
avatar
DSM

Posts : 144
Join date : 2015-02-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who should attack first?

Post by DSM on Fri May 15, 2015 10:27 am

My own opinion.

Higher level players should attack first. It is easier to plan a clean-up than to try and decide which defences will pose the biggest risk to someone with a differently level of ability (and troop levels etc.)

Example:

My attack today was a nearly flawless Warrior attack on a RL. The next person to attack the same map as me was Lord Kasey with Scorcher and Tanks; Although my attack was very effective, it was wasted because Kasey could have beat the RL during his own attack with little effect on his overall performance.

My own attack in the above example was basically wasted.
avatar
DSM

Posts : 144
Join date : 2015-02-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who should attack first?

Post by pyllytin on Fri May 15, 2015 2:41 pm

Depends on map. Just put to notes who should attack first.

pyllytin

Posts : 1
Join date : 2015-04-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who should attack first?

Post by Steve-O v2.00 on Sat May 16, 2015 11:48 am

You bring up a very good point and example dsm. It sucks that it happens. But i think that like pylly says, it would have to depend on the map. And because we are spread all over the world, and have our own schedules, i dont really see it possible to assign certain people to attack at specific stages of a base. It would be ideal of course, but i dont really see it as being possible.

My hope is that as we all gain more experience, that we can get our attacks more effective overall. And maybe be a little better at troop selection, and ability to use a variety of troop combos so we can be a little more flexible
avatar
Steve-O v2.00

Posts : 194
Join date : 2015-02-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who should attack first?

Post by Craigimus on Sat May 16, 2015 2:18 pm

I agree with Pylly and steve all depends on the situation, we need to put the best guys in the best positions. Group of rls??? one high lvl can clear em all in one go, 10 lower lvls wont. Vice versa a bunch of cannons, why have a high lvl trash em all with a whole turn with grenadiers when anyone with rifles can. We just have to try to direct and/or expect guys to not take the easy(for high guys) or the low lvls to throw their troops lives away and do something they can handle, and def use there gbe well.
And Steve you're 100% spot on, our lows can become our best, we all started somewhere, we just have to encourage everyone to make start decisions and not be scared to fail on "smart" ideas.
avatar
Craigimus

Posts : 17
Join date : 2015-04-01
Age : 31
Location : Lowell Ma

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who should attack first?

Post by oooo on Wed May 20, 2015 1:40 am

Well said Craigimus!

For what my opinion is worth, ultimately, I figure it has to be up to the higher level player to decide if they can make a reasonable go of their attack or if it's dicey. If it's dicey then recognize that guys like me are happy to try and take out a few pesky defences to ensure the hitter's, and thus team's, success - meaning if Bernd is like "I want to attack base x, but there's 3 rl's that are going to bother me. Can someone take them out for me? Then I'll be assured success" I'd be like "no problem, I'll do it right now." As I'm sure any of us would

So basically, I think until the particular hitter sees a particular situation it's not sensible to try and make a rule - though, the hitters should never throw their attacks away and feel comfortable asking whoever's around to help ensure their maximum probability of a successful attack. [or just be like Sula or Bernd and just solo tinderbox bases...nbd]


oooo

Posts : 28
Join date : 2015-05-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who should attack first?

Post by Doc_Holiday on Fri May 22, 2015 8:09 am

I agree with you guys with a twist: as Craig said, The low guys can make a lot of damage to BC, take out mines or mortars, etc. This paves the way to the big hitters taking down the sl, rl and clear a path. Then the low levels finish the job. I propose: clear, clean and swipe as our war cry. Or suicide, trash and destroy. Or Arghhhh! Any thoughts?
avatar
Doc_Holiday

Posts : 21
Join date : 2015-03-16
Location : Los Angles, CA

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who should attack first?

Post by Absolute on Mon May 25, 2015 8:28 pm

Won't ever work. We have 50 people in different time zones that have lives.

Absolute

Posts : 19
Join date : 2015-03-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who should attack first?

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum