Is it worth "rushing" to GA, or when would you go?
- Thread starter phraxos
- Start date
Tsamu - I have been there. As an industrial with a max offense except for uni (almost none), I could take down almost any industrial and many globals. I do disagree with your characterization of enlightenment bases - I tried medal climbing, and above a certain point even most of those involved significant losses as an industrial. But in general, lack of air defenses and sniper towers are a huge plus.
I rushed to atomic before the silo existed. Now that the silo exists, and starts at global, I would put going to global as a much higher priority just to get one of those. And stay there longer to have more time attacking plentiful non silo industrial bases. The silo is viciously, game changingly overpowered, and as with most buildings level 1 is the most important to get - so much so that now global has the biggest single defensive boost, and the biggest offensive boosts (4 planes, and significantly better ones plus howitzers) while still having access to the entire range of industrials who cannot add that building.
And I wouldn't rush to leave that global behind until you have all planes done, and at least one factory prepared for the biggest game changers in atomic - APCs and THs. 5 fighters is big too, but that feels quite far away.
I rushed to atomic before the silo existed. Now that the silo exists, and starts at global, I would put going to global as a much higher priority just to get one of those. And stay there longer to have more time attacking plentiful non silo industrial bases. The silo is viciously, game changingly overpowered, and as with most buildings level 1 is the most important to get - so much so that now global has the biggest single defensive boost, and the biggest offensive boosts (4 planes, and significantly better ones plus howitzers) while still having access to the entire range of industrials who cannot add that building.
And I wouldn't rush to leave that global behind until you have all planes done, and at least one factory prepared for the biggest game changers in atomic - APCs and THs. 5 fighters is big too, but that feels quite far away.
GA requires 130, but you say you 119. I only read OP so many this has already been addressed. As long as your offense mostly done I would jump. The fears of you getting attacked all the time (for not being fully upgraded) is a farce. That never happened to me.
There is no shortage of silo-less bases in Global either, and it will always be this way because silo requires a dual trigger (1: upgrade oil refinery to hold enough oil, 2: collect enough oil for silo), and as such it will always be a late-Global building rather than early-Global. For that reason, access to silo-less bases is not a good reason to delay going to Atomic. Moreover, you get tank destroyers in Atomic, which allow you to take on the silo more easily.
Tsamu
Approved user
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2016
- Messages
- 724
I agree completely melheor . With my AA base I keep my medal count between 1200 and 1600 and only have to hit next base a few times to find a nice silo-less GA base with decent (2k) oil and 500k food/gold. Easy farming
Even with a rushed AA base, once you have upgraded your barracks troops you will have little trouble collecting resources. Just spend it all before you log off Or use one of those peace treaties you can get from the dock. yemen does raise a valid point though. I would not go to AA without first building a silo.
Lord Wayne
Approved user
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2016
- Messages
- 18
It is a temptation by many to leap to the next age but it hurts you more oft than not. For many reasons (all of which I will not be able to explain in this post) it is a bad thing to make the leap early. Especially if you participate in World War on a regular basis.
I HIGHLY Recommend maxing out ALL defenses, library, & University technologies as much as possible before advancing to the next age.
Its not the attractive option. It's not pleasant to most but it is the best thing you can possibly do.
I went global at level 160 and it was still too early. I severely regretted not being able to raid Enlightenment Age bases anymore as they were 'easy money'.
From what I seen level 130 is a good time to go industrial and about level 190 is a good time to go Global.
There are many rushed bases in this game. Many of which get steamrolled by players ages below them because they never invested the time to fully develop their defenses.
Competitive Alliances will instantly kick rushed players because they create bad World War Match ups due to having their level being artificially inflated.
Enjoy the ride and look at this game as a marathon and not a sprint.
I am currently level 195 and I have zero plans to go Atomic any time soon.
I HIGHLY Recommend maxing out ALL defenses, library, & University technologies as much as possible before advancing to the next age.
Its not the attractive option. It's not pleasant to most but it is the best thing you can possibly do.
I went global at level 160 and it was still too early. I severely regretted not being able to raid Enlightenment Age bases anymore as they were 'easy money'.
From what I seen level 130 is a good time to go industrial and about level 190 is a good time to go Global.
There are many rushed bases in this game. Many of which get steamrolled by players ages below them because they never invested the time to fully develop their defenses.
Competitive Alliances will instantly kick rushed players because they create bad World War Match ups due to having their level being artificially inflated.
Enjoy the ride and look at this game as a marathon and not a sprint.
I am currently level 195 and I have zero plans to go Atomic any time soon.
So many say to fully max defense before you moved up. I ignored that and moved up as soon as my offense was mostly done and am glad I did.
I was told I would get attacked constantly and that did not happen. What did happen was I make massively more per hour in looting. Meaning I don’t need to loot as much to get what I need.
The ONLY reason I would go slow would be if I started a second account and wanted to better enjoy each age and beat the age above me.
I was told I would get attacked constantly and that did not happen. What did happen was I make massively more per hour in looting. Meaning I don’t need to loot as much to get what I need.
The ONLY reason I would go slow would be if I started a second account and wanted to better enjoy each age and beat the age above me.
I would personally recommended maxing out industrial age defenses before going forward because oil is difficult to protect otherwise. I was level 164 when I moved to GA, and I found the transition to be easy because of my upgraded defenses. Moving to GA opens up the possibility of being attacked by Atomic age players who not only have access to stronger troops, but also have +15 troops and +1 plane. Food & gold can be raided easily for upgrades in a single play session, but saving oil for upgrades is a longer process that often requires multiple play sessions. I wish you good luck whether you choose to stay in IA a while longer or if you choose to progress to the GA.
Yes that's a good idea. I'm level 154 industrial and will definitely upgrade fully all defences. There is a discount at the moment which helps so i am doing airstrip, bunker and command post upgrade. My walls are fully max so i can only raid for oil. I am overflowing with gold and food....how can you get rid of it all?
MSS-Gaming
Approved user
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2017
- Messages
- 168
Raiding with maxed food/gold is just part of the game. I spent months in atomic age just looting for oil after I had my walls at Lvl 15.
Yup, this is 100% accurate. I'm council on a top 100 alliance and I wouldn't even look at your layout before insta-kicking you as a ~140GA. To be honest, if you joined now as a 119 industrial I'd kick you; you are about 15 levels under the minimum for being useful in war, even with a killer layout. We war back-to-back and we can't have someone opted out of war "catching up" (leeching) in a slot that could have a non-rushed base that won't get 5'd every war by EA opponents.
I see a lot of people saying upgrade your offense and roll out - no.
I slapped rushed atomics like those posters around in industrial, even ones with a silo. Ain't no shortcuts.
Festivus
Approved user
- Joined
- May 19, 2016
- Messages
- 268
My nowhere-near-maxed atomic eats nearly-maxed globals for breakfast in war, and they rarely get more than 2 or 3 stars off of me in return.
I have 5 accounts and have decided to max 2 industrials just for the heck of it, but there's really no reason to do it strategically. I recommend maxing offense before moving on, but maxing defenses and especially university or library is just plain silly and unnecessary.
As soon as your offense is ready to raid, make the jump and catch up your defenses later. I don't recommend jumping 2 ages like some here have, but there's simply no sound strategic reason to max everything. We routinely demolish alliances in war that adopt this strategy, and then see them come here and complain about sandbagging, matchmaking, and such, lol.
I have 5 accounts and have decided to max 2 industrials just for the heck of it, but there's really no reason to do it strategically. I recommend maxing offense before moving on, but maxing defenses and especially university or library is just plain silly and unnecessary.
As soon as your offense is ready to raid, make the jump and catch up your defenses later. I don't recommend jumping 2 ages like some here have, but there's simply no sound strategic reason to max everything. We routinely demolish alliances in war that adopt this strategy, and then see them come here and complain about sandbagging, matchmaking, and such, lol.
arcelalmelor
Approved user
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2016
- Messages
- 12
+1 rushing to GA. If you are always active on attacking, then of course you are an offensive player who need more offense, by going to GA, youll gain more offense. we have this player in our alliance when we do 25v25, he is an atomic base and the base number is always around 20-25. he can 5 star the #1 base at war. I myself will always rush to the next age when possible, it's because I want the new look and the new troops. Back when I was still at classical age, I was rushing to atleast gunpowder age since I hate having archers, I want troops with guns.
Also please rush to GA. So I can farm your base. thanks in advance, be sure to stock up some oil.
Also please rush to GA. So I can farm your base. thanks in advance, be sure to stock up some oil.
_Flash_
Approved user
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2016
- Messages
- 862
In the game, it comes down to what one can do for the time one has spent on the game. Or, crowns for the upgrades
One can spend an eternity in IA and max out everything including university researches, and then take out rushed Atomic Age bases. Or, one can instead spend the same amount of time in focusing on offensive upgrades, maybe some minimal defensive upgrades, and maybe no economic upgrades, get to Atomic Age, and then take down said or even better Atomic Age bases.
It's a choice each player has.
Levels can be highly misleading. Correlating levels to ages to make decisions about the usefulness of a player in wars can also be highly misleading.
If the levels come from road upgrades and other economic upgrades, and if the troops are weak and are behind by more than one age, the said player might not be a great addition to a war roster. (One age allowance is only because one cannot know if the player just made it to the current age a day or a week ago, and might be in the process of upgrading the troops).
On the other hand, if most of the XPs for levels of a player come from offensive and defensive upgrades, and if the player has ignored economic upgrades (including roads), the said player might be a valuable addition to the war roster. Even if his/her level is low for an age compared to the general average for that age.
Sure, someone who has moved ahead through the ages by focusing on offensive upgrades and with minimal defensive upgrades might get 5 starred every war by an opponent of the same age or sometimes, an age lower. But, it would be no different had the player spent the same amount of time in the lower age, trying to max out everything. The opponent player who 5 starred him/her would still 5 star him/her in this scenario.
For example, if a player has played for about a year, and has reached Global Age with all of the upgrades to offensive capabilities, but, with minimal defensive upgrades, the player would get 5 starred by other Global Age players (or, sometimes, Industrial Age players). Granted.
But, if the same player had spent the same amount of time trying to max out every upgrade and is at EA or early IA by the end of one year, the base would still very likely get 5 starred by the same Global Age player who 5 starred him/her previously. This doesn't make the player less valuable.
The difference between these two cases would be that the player who focused on offensive upgrades and minimal defensive upgrades will have better troops for attack (bazookas, howitzers), better tactics (access to decoys) and more tactic slots, better mercenaries, and would perhaps be able to add a missile silo to the base, and might be able to throw off some opponents off guard if they weren't careful. And, the player would be able to bring in a lot more punch to the attacks by being on the war roster.
These are choices players have, and one approach isn't definitively better than the other.
The only bad approach would be mindlessly and badly rushing through the ages, by gaining the minimal level requirements to advance an age through economic upgrades, and significantly lagging behind on upgrades to offensive capabilities.
In summary, return on time invested, viewed in conjunction with choice of upgrades a player has made are better indicators of how useful a base is in wars, instead of going by absolutes on age or levels.
I can understand that the extra firepower from players who have focused exclusively on offensive upgrades might not be too valuable to an alliance if there are already enough heavy weights (who have spent a lot of time, or a lot of crowns, or a combination of both) to cover for all bases in a war by virtue of having two attacks each. But, the vast majority of the alliances who don't have a lot of heavy weight players would find those who focus on offensive capabilities and move through the ages to be valuable additions.
Hope this helps.
Cheers and happy gaming!
One can spend an eternity in IA and max out everything including university researches, and then take out rushed Atomic Age bases. Or, one can instead spend the same amount of time in focusing on offensive upgrades, maybe some minimal defensive upgrades, and maybe no economic upgrades, get to Atomic Age, and then take down said or even better Atomic Age bases.
It's a choice each player has.
Levels can be highly misleading. Correlating levels to ages to make decisions about the usefulness of a player in wars can also be highly misleading.
If the levels come from road upgrades and other economic upgrades, and if the troops are weak and are behind by more than one age, the said player might not be a great addition to a war roster. (One age allowance is only because one cannot know if the player just made it to the current age a day or a week ago, and might be in the process of upgrading the troops).
On the other hand, if most of the XPs for levels of a player come from offensive and defensive upgrades, and if the player has ignored economic upgrades (including roads), the said player might be a valuable addition to the war roster. Even if his/her level is low for an age compared to the general average for that age.
Sure, someone who has moved ahead through the ages by focusing on offensive upgrades and with minimal defensive upgrades might get 5 starred every war by an opponent of the same age or sometimes, an age lower. But, it would be no different had the player spent the same amount of time in the lower age, trying to max out everything. The opponent player who 5 starred him/her would still 5 star him/her in this scenario.
For example, if a player has played for about a year, and has reached Global Age with all of the upgrades to offensive capabilities, but, with minimal defensive upgrades, the player would get 5 starred by other Global Age players (or, sometimes, Industrial Age players). Granted.
But, if the same player had spent the same amount of time trying to max out every upgrade and is at EA or early IA by the end of one year, the base would still very likely get 5 starred by the same Global Age player who 5 starred him/her previously. This doesn't make the player less valuable.
The difference between these two cases would be that the player who focused on offensive upgrades and minimal defensive upgrades will have better troops for attack (bazookas, howitzers), better tactics (access to decoys) and more tactic slots, better mercenaries, and would perhaps be able to add a missile silo to the base, and might be able to throw off some opponents off guard if they weren't careful. And, the player would be able to bring in a lot more punch to the attacks by being on the war roster.
These are choices players have, and one approach isn't definitively better than the other.
The only bad approach would be mindlessly and badly rushing through the ages, by gaining the minimal level requirements to advance an age through economic upgrades, and significantly lagging behind on upgrades to offensive capabilities.
In summary, return on time invested, viewed in conjunction with choice of upgrades a player has made are better indicators of how useful a base is in wars, instead of going by absolutes on age or levels.
I can understand that the extra firepower from players who have focused exclusively on offensive upgrades might not be too valuable to an alliance if there are already enough heavy weights (who have spent a lot of time, or a lot of crowns, or a combination of both) to cover for all bases in a war by virtue of having two attacks each. But, the vast majority of the alliances who don't have a lot of heavy weight players would find those who focus on offensive capabilities and move through the ages to be valuable additions.
Hope this helps.
Cheers and happy gaming!
Last edited:
Mountainking
Approved user
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2016
- Messages
- 767
I was a lvl140IA moved up to GA lvl140. I can assure you I have maximum offenses and defenses. Being lvl 140 does not mean being rushed. Its the most you can get to without farms, caravans, roads. 140. Max O/D.
A rushed atomic will have a lower war weight than some huge IA or low GA and be able to hit harder. This means he is effectively carrying a weight of an EA/IA player and can take out AA bases. A win IMO.
A rushed atomic will have a lower war weight than some huge IA or low GA and be able to hit harder. This means he is effectively carrying a weight of an EA/IA player and can take out AA bases. A win IMO.
So I took advantage of the event and rushed to GA very early. I had bare minimum to upgrade (130), but that is deceiving as I ignored all Econ and all my key offense was fully upgraded. I immediately started missile silo (with discount you didn’t need upgraded oil refinery) and then used crowns to finish building missile silo. It has been a week and have started upgrade of all buildings that take a lot of oil plus Armory. At 45% oil discount it was a no brainer on what to upgrade.
pre missile silo: I was hit like crazy
after missile silo: I’ve been hit once in last 3 days
In conclusion, goin to GA early was much harder than going to IA early when you don’t factor missile silo. The event is what made it possible without spending a ton of crowns (spent 1,400 crowns total to speed up silo upgrade). Overall, very happy with decision but I would not recommend going so early if you did not take already advantage of the rush discounts.
As for attacking bases, it has been easy because there are a ton of sub 120 level IA bases for easy farm.
pre missile silo: I was hit like crazy
after missile silo: I’ve been hit once in last 3 days
In conclusion, goin to GA early was much harder than going to IA early when you don’t factor missile silo. The event is what made it possible without spending a ton of crowns (spent 1,400 crowns total to speed up silo upgrade). Overall, very happy with decision but I would not recommend going so early if you did not take already advantage of the rush discounts.
As for attacking bases, it has been easy because there are a ton of sub 120 level IA bases for easy farm.
Last edited:
Tnx all who answered.
I want to update - it has been two weeks since I rushed to GA with level 130.
Now level 134, with level 1 silo, howie and decoy will be ready in couple days.
I think that the rush is worth it.
To answer those who think not, especially those who say they would kick me from their alliance - today we had war with much better alliance (+900/-35).
Their motto in joining is "we do not accept age rushers".
I am the last standing, being attacked by their 2, 3 GA players level 190+, both getting 4 stars from me.
I took 4 stars from their number 1, without planes (my airstrip is upgrading).
For those who are not convinced, let me ask this this way:
1) Offence - there is no doubt that rushing makes you stronger then staying. Decoy, howie, coalitions...
2) What is stronger in your opinion - 4 weeks concentrating only on EA-IA defense buildings, or rushing to GA and building 2 levels of silo, 2 SAM, 2 levels of bunker,
1 level of GA tank depot, level 5 of resistance ( == 2 more heavy tanks level 3 each defense, 1 more flame tank etc)?
Hope that makes it clear, at least for me - when you finish your offensive upgrades, rush forward!
P.S.2: Didn't use crowns for anything.
P.S.3: Agree with Necksahn - if not the winter of ages, it would be more difficult.
I want to update - it has been two weeks since I rushed to GA with level 130.
Now level 134, with level 1 silo, howie and decoy will be ready in couple days.
I think that the rush is worth it.
To answer those who think not, especially those who say they would kick me from their alliance - today we had war with much better alliance (+900/-35).
Their motto in joining is "we do not accept age rushers".
I am the last standing, being attacked by their 2, 3 GA players level 190+, both getting 4 stars from me.
I took 4 stars from their number 1, without planes (my airstrip is upgrading).
For those who are not convinced, let me ask this this way:
1) Offence - there is no doubt that rushing makes you stronger then staying. Decoy, howie, coalitions...
2) What is stronger in your opinion - 4 weeks concentrating only on EA-IA defense buildings, or rushing to GA and building 2 levels of silo, 2 SAM, 2 levels of bunker,
1 level of GA tank depot, level 5 of resistance ( == 2 more heavy tanks level 3 each defense, 1 more flame tank etc)?
Hope that makes it clear, at least for me - when you finish your offensive upgrades, rush forward!
P.S.2: Didn't use crowns for anything.
P.S.3: Agree with Necksahn - if not the winter of ages, it would be more difficult.
Last edited:
Persia
Approved user
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2017
- Messages
- 274
I rushed AA during this event. My main logic was that the further I went, the better troops I'd be able to wield and help my alliance the most, and that if I was going to be attacked by CWA, why not get as high as I can, since it will not matter if I'm global or atomic. Started on the silo, currently have 1 atomic barracks and the Global mercenary camp upgrade going, plus the global armory, and planning to rush my offence before even touching a defensive building. Yes, including SAM.
I would only recommend this to a highly active player. I have mostly EA defences, but the 4th mortar built and 4th ballista, and level 10/11 walls. Attacking most GA/AA bases is a struggle, you'll have to Next a lot more than you would if you had a GA/AA army. But it is a baptism by fire, and you will never become a decent attacker if you gorge yourself on maxing whilst pounding bases that were rushed by people who have no idea how to build a base. Granted, not everyone does this, and if you're already at high medals in Industrial or whenever, it's even better for you. But you should not expect the easy wins with a few rifleman losses once you rush ages like that, if you're playing like I was.
This is general advice to anyone. I wouldn't rush in most cases - but I did what I did and I'm going to have to find a way to deal with it. Shouldn't be too difficult of a hurdle as long as you keep raiding, and build the silo of course.
I would only recommend this to a highly active player. I have mostly EA defences, but the 4th mortar built and 4th ballista, and level 10/11 walls. Attacking most GA/AA bases is a struggle, you'll have to Next a lot more than you would if you had a GA/AA army. But it is a baptism by fire, and you will never become a decent attacker if you gorge yourself on maxing whilst pounding bases that were rushed by people who have no idea how to build a base. Granted, not everyone does this, and if you're already at high medals in Industrial or whenever, it's even better for you. But you should not expect the easy wins with a few rifleman losses once you rush ages like that, if you're playing like I was.
This is general advice to anyone. I wouldn't rush in most cases - but I did what I did and I'm going to have to find a way to deal with it. Shouldn't be too difficult of a hurdle as long as you keep raiding, and build the silo of course.
Your farms, caravans, and roads have zero weight on your war weight, this has been confirmed by TinSoldier and other mods multiple times. Just because you're level 140 GA doesn't mean they'll match you against level 140 EA, that 140 is unrelated to your war weight.
