attacking bases in specified order or not?

In the chat people want to back to the old system where we specified the attacking order and stick to one base until it is down. Please discuss it here.

Hi,
here are my points why I think it is better not to force people to attack a specific base and therefore not defining an attacking order, so in other words i recommend we stick to the current system of putting preferred troop usage in the basenotes so that people can choose which base to attack.

* on youtube i see several TF who are attacking bases parallel, so it cannot be that wrong
* if we have someone who is expert on tanks, smokey warriors, Hookas ... dont force him to wait until his specific base is on. He might miss his attack !
* I recall a base with fawlty notes and numerous members sacrificed their troops there instead of attacking another base where they knew what to do
* In addition to point 2: most people only have a small time window per day when they can attack. The should attack the base where they can help the TF most.
* we finished now several OPs with "random" attacking order, so it cannot be the wrong concept. We failed too, but so we did with attacking order.
* with attacking order: where do you want to "draw the line" ? If a base is already done with 8k health left on the core, i bet you dont want me to send my troops to finish it off! We have some more heavy weights in the TF now. So who would have to obey attacking order and who wont? I see big discussions coming up here

I recommend sticking to our current system, were scotch and and sam put basenotes and write down preferred troops. for instance warrios attacks to take out vital defenses on different maps is a normal thing to do! We cannot do this, if we stick to a fixed order!

Let's hear, what problems you guys encountered and find out, if there are different solutions to that

I think the current arrangement works

However it may be worth making it policy for members to check in to the chat beforehand to gain some advise on which base attack they would be best suited to at that moment, with their troops level.

if nobody responds , then obviously don't hang around for ages , just do what you wish.

I would number them(easier for me

Hi potatoe,
i think that i already covered

* before we attack we read the last lines of the chat, we watch the last attack on that base and we tell in chat we are about to attack and wait for some 30secs. Then we attack.

Potatoace wrote:I think the current arrangement works

However it may be worth making it policy for members to check in to the chat beforehand to gain some advise on which base attack they would be best suited to at that moment, with their troops level.

if nobody responds , then obviously don't hang around for ages , just do what you wish.

I scotch,
easier for you understood. But you regards all my points of less importance to that ? No offence, just want to be clear

I wrote more, don't know where it went?, it is about how even if we change, say for example. You cannot attack at another point of the day and you have tmed, but the current base is full of BC's, as long as permission is given, you can attack another base.

Hi Bernd
yes, I see now we have it covered.
Could add in policy *we tell in chat we are about to attack and very briefly how (intended targets, flank etc). Thus opening up to debate and bringing forth a much more cohesive teamforce.

I know its an unwieldy change that would alter the way we operate greatly so maybe a strict policy rewrite isn't the way forward. Maybe just putting something out there to discuss here and maybe promote as a best practice in chat instead.

Many do this already anyway I notice. The more people do this , the more natural it would become to all. Im going to do it for a bit now too, see if it improves my attacks

ok, changed it in our policy. please review.

Looks good to me .
I didn't mean for "Thus opening up...teamforce" to be added but it helps to justify it I guess.

Alternatively , I'm equally as happy for this just to be a best practice note