Iron Base Stacking - Aussie Shred Experience

[Vixen]

DynoBot stop moving your post!!! At least you put that anger to good use

 

[Prodigal Clint]

you mean like calling all teams garbage who chose to operate with a shred of integrity and not use dummy accounts?

 

[Hugh Jazz]

Just remember the source Clint ...

 

[Glacier]

Already have





Twice ;-]

 

[Vixen]

DynoBot ... you deleted it again?

 

[Prodigal Clint]

its cool, lemme know if u ever want to stir the pot.. may have a SS ; )

 

[S_How]

No Title

Hi Everybody!

We are having the same problem this war, and we are actually thinking about not even attack.
We are in a 30v30 war against ARES ARMY..
they are:
9 global age,
9 industrial age,
2 enlightment age
2 Gunpowder age
8 iron age (8!!!!!!)

We are ITALIANI 2016:
13 industrial age( most of them recently industrial, only 6 with fully industrial army)
10 enlightment
6 gunpowder age
1 medieval age

1) where is the fun in that?
2) we are going to lose 698 glory points and we'd be winning 400 for a war impossible to win for us...it's just math.

We don't care about losing our 13th position in glory points Ranking.
We knew it was going to happen someday, and we are going to fight harder than before to gain back the position we have earned with so many efforts.
After all, refusing to play with iron age profiles, we are used to play against much stronger alliances and we wouldn't be in that ranking position if it we didn't play this way.

I really hope this problem will be fixed someday. At least this alliances shouldn't be rewarded so much for defeating weaker alliances like us ( by level not ability).
please, don't force us to do the same!!!!
Wendy

ps i'm going to start upgrading to global age in this right moment. I needed another month to upgrade the last few things, but this is becoming necessary.

We went against Ares Army in a similar matchup. Funny thing is they were really bad, despite being outgunned horribly we were able to get really close, it was 175-173 but sill a loss for us. And they were rewarded for it. We are facing this almost every war and it's nearly killed the game for us, since war is what we always loved and played for. This is our current opponent. Even though some bases are classical they have almost no upgrades. Some not even walls, to manipulate their matchup. The top end of course is all high level global, bottom end all undeveloped.

 

[Max_imus]

Ohh....you dropped to 30v30 and still got stacking alliance :/

 

[GailWho]

We got one in 20v20 they are everywhere

 

[Vixen]

We have been copping them in all sizes too... this issue isn't going away...

 

[ped2000]

hang in there, maybe in 9 months we'll see a slight change for the marginally better!


.....But for now here's an elephant army if you do 400 battles in a week.

 

[Isrem Ovani]

Wars should be matched up for glory, not for upgrades. Then stacking will be useless to gain glory.

 

[Wendy]

S_How, i know what you mean, has been frustrating playing against them.
One of my allies went in their Alliance and sent us a screenshot of their world war history(i don't know if i can post it here). They have something like 10/10 perfect wars, and i remember yours being the only one with a good score. we did 119 stars, but we didn't fight a lot as after 6 hours they alredy made the perfect.
shame on them,alliances like that are ruining the game.
We have now tried a 35 war, calling a couple of medieval age players from the camp, but wars are just horrible, we loose 1.288 gp and win 70 and they don't even attack.
Really hope to match your ally one day it would be a fun game (actually not, you're stronger than us ahah)

 

[S_How]

Wars should be matched up for glory, not for upgrades. Then stacking will be useless to gain glory.

The way to fix the current mismatch problems with iron age stacking/sandbagging is not to create even more mismatches, like this suggestion would. I would much rather see it that the highest advancement teams have the ability to earn more glory than other teams, by fighting matches that are competitive to them.

 

[Ravenlord]

What if there was a penalty system for alliances doing this? If an alliance has all their members attack (and the alliance wins) they get all the glory. If a team has less than 50% of it's members attack then they only get, say, 25% of the potential glory. Would that work?

 

[Hugh Jazz]

Something that i was pondering over recently ... Multiplayer matchups restrict players from attacking more than an age up or down ... Why couldnt this be pulled into wars ...

I think it would create a bit more diversity. Since iron age is the first age you can join an alliance and wars, they would be hampered by only being able to attack one age up ... Not much good against gunpowder I'm afraid ... And since global is the current highest age they would only have other global bases or industrials alloted as potential targets.

I could see it now ... Sandbagger vs mostly enlightenment with the odd industrial and maybe a medieval .. All that top end talent would only have one or two targets for a potential of 10 maximum stars .. And those two industrial players would have a handful of targets and a potential of 20 stars ... I think the balance would fix itself pretty darn fast by limiting wars to their multiplayer restrictions.

 

[Hugh Jazz]

Yeah i know it would create a logistical nightmare and wars would end up being a joke for a while ... But whats the difference between now and then ? I think overall it would encourage global alliances to fight amongst themselves and alliances with a well balanced team would have less fear of meeting a team with 28 globals and 12 iron age ..

 

[Chadwicke]

What can't a few irons be in war , a true alliance should have all ages in it and war with , not to make the Match easier but to develop players, plus remember when you were all iron and classical ,well at least for me I had no one giving me artillery , howitzer, machine guns , basokas, trench mortars,etc if they are active not dead second accounts what is the problem? I had a 16 level go to a 40 in two weeks and ia contributing to the war now how is this bad ? So are you saying an alliance should only be made up of like age and level bases? Why can't they try and learn , why can't anyone call some cheats who do not age the low levels and great leaders who do develop the lower bases , plus if they have lower bases in war who can't hit the bottom and give up 5* per why can't you hit the top , I don't get it , it's as much a disadvantage as an advantage

 

[Hugh Jazz]

Nobody is suggesting they cant.

 

[Wendy]

you are right, you don't get it!
First because an iron age active player is at iron age for 3 days and those alliances use inactive players, so they don't use them to grow them up. when we were at lower ages we told the iron age players to get quick to the classical in order to play in war. Now we don't even accept them, what's the point of accepting a player in a 35 or more players alliance just to tell them they are not going to play?
It's not as much a disadvantage because the top is more influent than the bottom in wars, so if you use for example 5 irone age is true, they are 25 easy stars for the opponent, but if it allows you to play with 5 global age players that can easily take 50 stars to the top ten of enemy much weaker alliance, then this is an advantage.
The only situation that is as much a disadvantage as an advantage is when stackers meet stackers, but that's a fair match, and nobody is complaining about it