Attacking out of allowed net worth points range

[fragmaster]

it means u track down his offline hour block and strike only when he is offline.Offline player is weaker 10 times,coz he cant choose anything.offline player cannot protect 9 provinces with 1 army.

[fragmaster]

and those 11% means ,that if he has 100% army ,his weakest province can have 11% of his army if he puts 9x11% in 9 provinces.For every other distribution,u have less than 11% of his army to fight.in most cases big player wont like losing 5% army per offline and he will leave all of them with no army and either defend his gold with army,or send army save

[Tasilakosil]

So in fact, your tactic is all about finding out when he is offline and strike only within that period....and you count on 3 possibilities:

1. he distributes his army equaly over all of his provinces
2. he concentrate his army in 1 province
3. he moves out with his army and leave all provinces unprotected

right?

[fragmaster]

he wont distribute it equally putting swords or horses on a plate,it would be stupid.Im saying that whatever defensive units he wants to use for forts - archers or balistas ,they are limited with size ,and that size is something u can prepare for and defeat efficiently

[Tasilakosil]

could you make me an example? like how would you defeat 3200 heavy archers with 24 balisteas inside a level 6 fortress with 6 towers, with fortification at level 8 and moat at level 10. which units would you use and so on...

[fragmaster]

so this guy has 28800 total heavy archers and 216 balista and all F6??

[*Alander*]

Dont get offended, but nobody forced you to be weaker player.

"Dont get offended" he called you a weak player
...Don't get offended Tiger, but not everybody can deliver good support (read it good! I did not mentioned anybody in particular.)

Tasilakosil, I do understand you, I think every counter attack should not be punished, after all you are not the aggressor in the first place, you just defend what is yours, matter of fact I would say people should be gaining moral if you decided to send a counter attack, because you are willing to fight for your freedom, capitulations should lower moral, it's a sign of weakness.

[Tasilakosil]

so this guy has 28800 total heavy archers and 216 balista and all F6??

of course not...that was supposed to be a model situation based on my current situation....i do know now that it has some weaknesses but i still want to know your approach

[*Alander*]

Sorry but I disagree...i´m not a weaker player in this because of my choice, it is called "late start". And more points doesn´t make somebody a good player. And i do not agree with Stronger player has better researches, greater fortress, more defence mechanisms, possibility of better units or he can just outnumber a weaker player. Stronger player doesn´t have to physically attack a weaker player in order to stop his attacks, he can easily protect his own empire and let enemy smash himself on his citywalls...stronger player just have more options in this....my only choices are capitulate or suffer...i cant face his army....because he would crush it...it is 55000 units against 20 000...he got heavy units only, i have a mix....rebuilt my army would take me like 3 weeks, maybe more....but he is able to return in less than 12 hours...

like i said, the only thing that makes me toothless in this conflict is a loss of honor and morale....i´m not begging for a silverbullet...i just want to have a possibility to take advantage of my skills, a chance to proove who is better player...chance to show him that he picked a wrong guy

You know players with bigger points does not always have to have better military researches, the players that do grow the fastest mostly focused on mining and upgrades for faster researching, you can do choose to only focus on military techs this means you can be twice as strong as a player who has twice as more points then you, there for you can not eliminate the penalty for the so called weaker players, because IO create the free option for you to choose on what you want to do in the game and so to not give people more advantage if they choose a certain path to walk.

But like I said earlier a counter attack should not be punished since you are not the aggressor in the first place.

[Tasilakosil]

Sorry, that just made me laugh.....I´ve heard this sooo many times....like: Hey let me be, i dont want to fight, i just want to build my town and....bla bla bla. In every single browser game you can find thousands of these players...but what the hell...is this a SIM CITY or what? In last 10 000 years empires were built with sword and fire...most of our inventions come from military reasearches...computers were developed to guide missiles in the first place.

Anyway, all i´m trying to say is that a player who grows in points but forgets about military part is just a bad player...or said in another way, his game-style is not suitable for this game where army is very important if not the only thing that matters. He doesn´t have to attack 20 different targets every single day, but he should have enough army to survive few attacks...


PS: now i understand better why there is a limitaton even for those who attacks players with more points...but still, who said that there has to be a linear dependency right after 2x limit....i guess there should be a quadratic function instead which makes the frontier between 2x and out of 2x smoothier...and, maybe there should be some "memory". A player who attacks players out of range very often will be punished more for certain difference in points than a player who does so only sometimes for the same difference.