|
|
Post by Colwynn Snow on Dec 9, 2014 21:23:43 GMT -8
Hello everybody.
Crafting for next AvA is now going to be top priority.
Phase 1 big things we need: Ladders,Trebuchets,and Turtles. Stockpile all of these. If we fill these up quick in phase 1 it gives us extra time to craft everything else for phase 2.
We currently are working in crownlands. We have an ally at #11 there. For now let's lend them support actions when we can. Save all spoils.
We should be running Dothraki adventures for the blue drops. They will be useful for stage 1 of next cycle.
For next cycle, I'd propose going aid/barter/spy while we gain traction as an alliance. I'd suggest opening 1 camp at a time, aid first, spy second, and barter last. By one at a time i mean open on, then pour things into it until it reaches level ten, then lock it and open the next. Micro focus on the camps should help a lot in development. I suggest that since this is the first real cycle we will be together as a new alliance, we should push hard to make a name for ourselves.
We have initiated a cap of 25 members.
I would also like to get feelers out to our allies when we select a region. being a smaller alliance can work. Even better if we pick a region that we have allies in to back us up should we become a target.
Just an idea for focus on the road ahead. please let me know what you guys think.
|
|
|
|
Post by zepp on Dec 9, 2014 21:30:51 GMT -8
I am going to start another specialization poll when I get home, but I am thinking that an Aid/Fight/Barter mix might be useful, Spy is useful for me, but we do not need it all the time, especially if we rely on allies. And it might be interesting to see if we can find an alliance willing to take the same strategy and to use eachother for A/F/B to develop our camps.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cristan Jast on Dec 11, 2014 2:24:04 GMT -8
Interesting concept but wow that is a lot of battle materials to farm. Personally I'd like to see if we can reach level 20 camps with the group capped at 25, but to push two battle camps to 20 would difficult methinks
|
|
|
|
Post by tremond on Dec 11, 2014 6:48:04 GMT -8
Hey all,
I had made a post with some food for thought for the next AvA we participate in on the previous forum… I'll see if I can copy and paste it. Essentially tactics for working with an ally (allies) that could really boost camp spoils and credits. And help weather occasional aggressive attacks with less pain. All about lining up the barter targets and aggressive action targets. Lol - maybe that is the concise way to say what I wrote an essay about on the other forum.
Tre
|
|
|
|
Post by tremond on Dec 11, 2014 7:08:16 GMT -8
Can't see to be able to find the other forum at the moment. I don't have the link saved so either I'm getting it wrong or its been shut down.
Essentially - with our allies… line up the camps so that our targets line up… for example
camp 1: barter - our target camp for ally aggressive action
camp 2: aid - our secondary target for levelling
camp 3: sabo (or whatever aggressive action) - our primary target for leveling
Allies choose the same set up. We have a free for all of aggressive actions against camp 1 of our allies… they do the same to us. EQUALLY split with barters against camp 3. It can be up for debate as to which ones are levelled 2nd and 3rd… perhaps with that many barters we make it the second to level. The important part is making sure that the camps are organized in the same way with our main levelling ally (or allies). I think I originally figured intrigue camp 1st to level, battle second, and trade last because the order of time it takes for making the siege units.
The argument for sabo/aid/barter is so that we benefit from repairing our allies camps. Hopefully they could have an aid camp as well. Whenever their is damage or an attack on an ally it becomes the primary target for aid until the aggressive actions are sorted out. If we could actually set this up with an ally we could negate those horrific repair costs and rely on allies.
Just a few thoughts. Obviously the 3rd camp to be levelled is our target for ally aggressive actions… and we do not garrison any SS in it. We focus most of our SS in the primary levelling camp target (highest lvldd one)say 65% and the other 35% in our secondary levelling camp target. Apologies if this is common sense/redundant information everyone has already figured out. With this small group of players who would like to work together we should be able to make whatever strategy work on our side. The challenge will most likely be selling the strategy to a primary ally so they follow it as well (only way it really works properly) and then hoping they can follow through with it.
See you in game,
Tremond
|
|
|
|
Post by zepp on Dec 11, 2014 11:12:57 GMT -8
Tremond,
The old forum has been taken down. And I think Sabo/Aid/Barter may be a way to go. The problem with Sabo is that it is a later-phase attack because people do not want upgrades slowed down. However, once a camp is level 20, Sabo is pretty useless for attacking abandoned camps, which makes it an ideal late-phase attack. So maybe save leveling the Sabo camp for last. Start by leveling the Aid camp.
In addition, since we are such an aid-focused alliance, I would say we should move to the Reach next time, where there is a regional prize for providing Aid.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Dec 11, 2014 21:58:13 GMT -8
After thinking about tre's post I have to say I really like idea a lot but have two reservations.
The first is that I agree we have to find an alliance to partner with but it has to be one our size. A good strategic partner would solve a lot of problems for us but I question if we've found an alliance that would do this plan with us. Ultimately one alliance has to go ahead, how do you choose who'd "win". And why not go aid barter spy. If the alliances are just gonna farm each other why go offensive at all. To me it makes more sense to approach an alliance roughly our size and we alternate which alliance will be the "winner". The "win" team can be offensive say harass steal barter and they can hit the loser camp in perpetuity because they're not killing SS's only depleting the camp. The loser works hard in phase 1 to get a good starter camp and then basically relaxes and makes mats for next phase when they win. At tier 1 mats are not a problem. I just looked at the requirements and I could almost make a 20 battle camp myself. Plus if one of us is attacked both alliances can come together to fight back. We're almost a tier 2 alliance in reality.
But really my main reservation is that we haven't played yet as this new alliance. I think we just go aid barter spy in that order and just go for it. I'm really worried that we are going to get ranked high fairly fast but have a lot of trouble defending it. I would like to see how we do but be able to walk away if it gets too hard to defend. This phase taught me the value of having a lot of SS's to defend our camps and lots of reserve silver to pay for reserves.
|
|
|
|
Post by zepp on Dec 12, 2014 4:09:51 GMT -8
Alex,
There are three reasons to have an offensive camp. The first is that it is simply more engaging and promotes greater participation to have an offensive camp. The second is that it allows that camp better defenses if it is attacked. Finally, the ability to improve our offensive actions against other camps allows us diplomatic leverage.
Z
|
|
|
|
Post by Colwynn Snow on Dec 12, 2014 6:42:04 GMT -8
My reservation about an offensive camp this initial go around is that we need a cycle to see how this group works together. A full cycle, to really evaluate the strengths and faults. We are going to develop camps faster than any of us are used to, and we need to make sure we have the resources to defend them. We will be a target, no if's and's or but's about it. I really want to see how we handle that, before we extend our grasp to making ourselves an even bigger one by purposely punching other alliances in the face. If we get in the mix that our friends in the north are in right now, will we be able to sustain. They are currently the target of two BIG alliances hammering them from both sides. Because they are in a coveted spot. It is very likely that if we build hard in phase 1, we will open in a prime spot, which means we need to be ready to hang on to it. Is it playing it safe, maybe a little, but until we see how we work in the new environment, I'd promote a little caution. I don't think we are going to have any trouble staying engaged in the next AvA cycle, simply because we will be the new kids, and probably rather high ranked out of the gate. Let's see how we hold on to what we take, before we reach for even more. I'm in no way saying this is perfect. I just see it as a very solid starting foot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Dec 12, 2014 7:29:59 GMT -8
Z, cols explain action is exactly what I'm thinking. Personnaly I think going offensive is far more fun but it also takes far more resources. For instance I burned through over a million silver in two days. And I know a lot of others did the same. By next phase 2 il be lucky to have a mill, I'm at 600K right now. I think I'll need WAY more. If we go offensive.
Plus what offensive camp to use has me really concerned. Ric posted something to the effect that we needed to be able to really kill or hurt an attacking alliances SS's if it came to war. He was sooo right. Harass is great but fight is better. Killing SS's is a drain far more so than harass.
I think the strategic partner really solves some problems for because now we are effectively 50-100 strong not just 25 but we need to find that partner. What happens if we get all three camps to ten next phase 1. We probably end up top ten and will definetly get hit. If we go offensive the tendency will be to hit back and get into a protracted war but I'm not sure that's wise yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cristan Jast on Dec 12, 2014 16:37:35 GMT -8
I'm with Col and Alex. First go around, new group, new tier. Let's get our feet wet first before we start cliff diving. Offensive camps are a silver pit and I know I won't have the bankroll going into this one that I had last time. And last time I was broke a few days in...lol
|
|
|
|
Post by sam on Dec 12, 2014 17:17:09 GMT -8
I'm with Col and Alex too. I'm still trying to build up my coinage, I think Direwolves left us all a little short of silver. We need time to build and see how we get on in our new home. So far so good but it's early days yet  |
|
|
|
Post by zepp on Dec 13, 2014 0:51:56 GMT -8
I understand, and agree.
|
|
|
|
Post by tremond on Dec 13, 2014 9:48:12 GMT -8
I really like the discussion that is taking place!
A couple thoughts about the points being debated.
Credit drain from this AvA… I think the concern about credits being drained from having an aggressive action camp is negligible if we consider 2 points of the strategy.
1. Aggressive actions ONLY take place against the ally farm camp … so there is no risk of retaliation from anyone.
2. Rely on Aid from allies to repair camps. That was my point of us having an aid camp ourselves… we offer to fix any dmgs they incur in return for them fixing any dmgs we incur.
We could save millions of credits by following these… and I think it negates the idea that an aggressive action camp is expensive.
Another couple points regarding the for/against argument of having an aggressive action camp. Having an aggressive action camp can actually act as a deterrent to alliances who may decide that because of our low numbers perhaps we could be a target for their aggressive actions. It'll also better enable us to respond aggressively to alliances that come after us - which if we start ranking in the top 10 or 20 we may become a target whether we try to stay off the radar or not. Also - aggressive actions like Sabo or harass seem to generally result in higher Victory Points compared to Aid/barter type. I also think that if another alliance finds themselves paying tonnes of credits to fix a camp because of a Sabo attack from our alliance - they will come to the negotiating table much quicker… or actually come to us for a ceasefire instead of us having to go to them.
Col - I would love to think we could bounce back and forth between 1st and 2nd in a region but I think even with a good strategy it won't be like hitting an "I WIN" button. There shouldn't even be a question about 'letting' our ally go ahead of us in the standings or vice versa… if we accomplish both alliances being in the top 10 I think we're off to a great start. Also - any strategic alliance benefits from both (or all) alliances participating as much as possible… not laying off. If our ally has a lvl 20 camp and we barter with it we get over 4500 credits for OUR camp per barter. If they only have a lvl 12 camp…. We don't benefit as much from the alliance. Same thing with the aggressive target farming camp.. the higher the target - the higher the VP we get … and they get.
Just a few thoughts.
I'm open to whatever we come up with strategy wise.
Tremond
|
|
|
|
Post by Colwynn Snow on Dec 13, 2014 12:56:51 GMT -8
Col - I would love to think we could bounce back and forth between 1st and 2nd in a region but I think even with a good strategy it won't be like hitting an "I WIN" button. There shouldn't even be a question about 'letting' our ally go ahead of us in the standings or vice versa… if we accomplish both alliances being in the top 10 I think we're off to a great start. Also - any strategic alliance benefits from both (or all) alliances participating as much as possible… not laying off. If our ally has a lvl 20 camp and we barter with it we get over 4500 credits for OUR camp per barter. If they only have a lvl 12 camp…. We don't benefit as much from the alliance. Same thing with the aggressive target farming camp.. the higher the target - the higher the VP we get … and they get. It was actually Alex that was talking about the two camps, not me. That said, relying on a farm camp for aggressive actions makes aggressive actions even less engaging than actively aiding/ and spying on people. It's basically a work around, or exploit, and I'm glad that I've seen the developers talk about ways to eliminate it in the future. Could we get a friend to go along with letting us hit them so that we let them hit us, probably. But how is that in any essence alliance verses alliance combat. If we provide support to other alliances, we are still engaging, and we will for sure be hit at some point, forcing us to fight. Ultimately I would love to see us get to the point, working together, that we will be able to have a real aggressive camp that picks and chooses real fights. I only suggested the aid/barter/spy format this round because we are new to this situation. One of being a controlled, communicating tier 1 alliance. It's a learning cycle for all of us. After it, we get to debate again on what we learn from it, and if we are taking a cycle off for RI's, or w/e else. I'm enjoying all the points of view coming out of this, it shows that we all care about this. |
|
