Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Anti Turtle: Who Defines it, and What Qualifies as AT?
So, what is AT?
Why does anyone that Anti turtle strategy need to be KT right away?
Anything special about it?
Why does anyone that Anti turtle strategy need to be KT right away?
Anything special about it?
Comments
However, being turtle would not be an excuse to bash you.
Flames: 90k/5K, def/dam, that is just wrong. LOL
An Anti-turtle is defined as someone in a constant state of suicide i.e. 33% or less of total military in defense. Some KDs walk a line at 40% and after a couple of grabs have less than 33% defense. And everyone knows you cant protect a suicider so if a KD is in constant suicide, again 33% or less defense at home, then they becone "Free Land". Those KDs get KT'd when they start hitting back the guys who grabbed them and ALs are like "No More of this BS"
I see you point of the turtles. Once the defense is high, then mass TFs... you're tough cookie to crack. But then again, since they are very slow growers, there are bound to be really big kingdom who can smack them. Probably, it may not be worth the land gain because of the heavy casualty that you will experience when grabbing a turtle.
On the other hands, there are those kingdoms who have at 50/50 dam/def, at same land size, then you will target this kingdom as your landgrabs, compared to turtles.
In essence, turtles don't have much action in the universe, but personally, I don't mind them at all.
Anti turtle (correct me if this analogy is wrong) is basically hot headed players like Ben. They are on constant need for expansion, risking too much of their damn/def for conquest. After all, Universal domination is the name of the game.
That is fine, but also...do not whine when you get slaughtered, because you are wide open... there is that high risk of devastation in exchange for risky conquest.
33 percent or less def at home is just calling for disaster - is this technically suicidal kingdom or shall we define what is suicide first? I agree, you cannot protect a suicider.
How do you define a suicidal kingdom? (( also depends how far during the game? ))
[as SL, you gotta be sure to make your call, if its suicidal or not]
a. sending 70% of you total defensive forces or
b. defense points left at kingdom per land ( ie. 15 LD per land, or 1: 5LD,4LT, 2Tanks)
Now, suicidal kingdom are technically free land for a LIMITED time, when he sent those 70% forces out, say 17 hours max, troops will eventually come home.
(bash rule don't apply for suicidal attackers, btw).
When their troops come home, and granting the suicidal kingdom survive his own error of judgement/living on the edge strategy, then he resumes normal game play.
He is NOT free land anymore, any SL can say "hey, back off, his troops are back, he has learned his lesson".
The trick is when SL are not there to tell other players of his status, then the whining and bitching pervades the airwaves...and you got a disaster. *he bash me, no..you're open, no i'm not, that sort of thing.*
What I observe now, that Anti Turtle is an old strategy, that is a fine strategy, if anyone plays that way.
BUT BUT do not bitch and complain if you get hit/whacked and bashed when you are wide open. No ONE can protect you when you send 70% total forces out.
And AT players should inform their SL at the very beginning of the game, so to avoid conflicts within the rest of the game.
~Ashy
Ah, I get it.
So, AT are also around because 1.) they have a DW planet which can be exploited to the advantage. And 2.) they have contacts, and they can watch each other's back.
That is understandable, granting there is a planet type that can be exploited, DW in this case.
Anti Turtle may send out large chunks of the attacking forces, but retaliations are few - because of contacts, SL bunos. This is interesting strategy of game play.
So, with your scenario, they might dominate the game.
You are correct, that is more fun if you have more playing time, after all universal domination is what star kingdoms are all about.
~Ashy
That's a very helpful comment to consider.
If they aren't defended well enough to not be hit, and have that offense/defense disparity, they SHOULD be free land. If they are actually far enough ahead that no one can break them, calling them free land doesn't matter, because no one can break them anyway.
100%-67% -Not Open
66%-34% -Open
33%-0% - Suicider
We had an Ajar at one point... but it was stupid as hell. Total Offense/defense at home...
Probably, this will be the same as 33/77 def/dam points said genstlemanfury up there.
The consensus that I am reading from this postings:
a. AT are built this way, and no way considered suicider.
That is just the risk they take to dominate the game.
b. At the rate of 33% and below, no SL or AL will protect them.
Anyone else want to add to that description for AT?
Are you in agreement with Pie suggested 100%-67% well defended, 66%-34%open, 33% and below- suicidal kingdom?
(Landfat kingdoms can be on another thread if anyone want to touch on that)
Anymore incoming Alliance Officers, Leaders wanna comment on these numbers?
at open?
Suicide?
33% or less is suicided still and if your build is to keep 33% of your total military in defense... you are AT.
Any one who plays DW knows theres a point where you all are safe from each other then one or more push a massive pile of goons. They might fall under AT but they are still safe... That wouldn't make them free land.
Zeal, you are correct. Open is not a title anymore. At one point it was used, but that was a decade ago...