Difference between a Challenge and a War

16 Replies
Basileus Leonidas
Administrator
21 January, 2016, 10:12 AM UTC

Archon!

Do you and your Coalition know the difference between a Challenge and a War? Learn this information and be the wisest Archon in Hellas!

Challenge:

- always lasts 7 days

- the restrictions for attacking Pantheons do not change

- there is no way to cancel a Challenge which has already been laid down

- a Challenge can be ended in only 7 days

War:

- there are no restrictions for attacking Pantheons

- lasts until one of the Coalitions cancels it

- if a war is cancelled, a 3-day timer appears. During this time both Coalitions remain in a state of war

- if Coalition A requests to end a war, but Coalition B doesn't reply to the request, then Coalition A has the ability to cancel the process of finishing a war and continue it further.

- if Coalition A requests to end a war and Coalition B confirms this, the war will not be continued.

While challenging and being at War your Coalition can earn points for the following actions:

- points for colony Resources collected

- by killing enemy warriors while defending

- by killing enemy warriors while attacking

- points for resources collected from enemy Cities

- points for downgrading enemy Pantheons

Attack first and don't cede an inch of land!


War doesn't determine who is right - only who is left.
UTC +0:00
john_zed
21 January, 2016, 10:15 AM UTC
Have Fun :)
UTC +0:00
ThatBloke
21 January, 2016, 11:34 AM UTC

On the subjective, non technical side, I'd add a few remarks :


- A challenge does not necessary means total war, nor strong dislikes. It's more of a fair-play competition.

You can agree on not using political units, not attacking low level players, not attacking opponents colonies, etc.

It's a sport-like challenge, you can agree on rules and the fact you're competing for the challenge doens't mean you're ennemies at all.


- A state of war will occur between real ennemies. While no hatred should be involved among civilized people playing an online multiplayers game, chances are people at war are all but friends for each another... :p

Any action will probably be allowed, and you'll really try crush each other to death. You're not opponents there, but mortal ennemies...

Try to stay courteous if possible, but there certainly will be blood, at least on a simulated and astract point of view (or at least we all hope it would be the case) ! LOL


I pity the fool
UTC +11:00
FastReD
21 January, 2016, 2:23 PM UTC
Freyner Arango's " I like tattoos "
UTC -5:00
Russell Healey
21 January, 2016, 2:37 PM UTC
Russell Healey
UTC +1:00
Uncle Junior
22 January, 2016, 10:36 AM UTC

All of you forgot to mention the most important part. Both of those are terribly imbalanced when it comes to points. Defender will always be victorious, given that no Greek Assassins were used.


So Leonidas your tip to "Attack first" is already sending coalitions to certain failiure, you should suggest to Defend first. 

†terminators†
UTC +0:00
el_bardera
22 January, 2016, 5:14 PM UTC

That's true.  The best way to win a challenge is to stay calm behind your walls, drinking a beer while the troops of your enemy smash against your defense. Even if he manages to win the battle and raid you, you will get much more defense points than the offense points that he will get. If you've got good walls, the difference is even higher.

If both challenging coalitions know this, then the challenge is pretty boring... nobody moves. If one coa knows the mechanics and the other don't, then the first one will win for sure. So the best way to win a challenge is to defy a coa that has never participated in one of this events.


Pretty stupid. But that's how it works.  It is a pity since challenges might be one of the most funny events of the game, but they are just this.. stupid.
UTC +0:00
Tel
22 January, 2016, 6:00 PM UTC

This is an interesting read. My coa is currently at war with another and despite having a much higher units destroyed figure (more than double) we are behind on points albeit not by many. We have had very successful raids destroying large numbers of units but cannot close the gap. 

I'm thinking about the comment from uncle junior "Defender will always be victorious, given that no Greek Assassins were used". Our situation is that the coa we are at war with just rely on and love to use assassins. One of our players had assassins land in excess of 1/hour average within a 24 hour period (33 to be exact). The difficulty is trying to gauge where the balance changes ie how many assassins will mean that the "Defender will always be victorious" equation will no longer be so.


I'm sure there is no clear answer .. I'm just thinking out loud and wishing that Greek Assassins were not part of the game. Okay, so it can often be more of a drachma fight than anything else - but 33 assassins in 24 hours just takes this to a silly level. Of course, Plarium are smiling !!

UTC +1:00
el_bardera
22 January, 2016, 6:30 PM UTC

In every battle, attacker gets points for the defensive units he kills, and defender gets points for offensive units killed. But it seems that there is some  bonus for the  defender. There are several possible explanations for that, one of them is the use of walls; a 50% defense bonus for a 5000 points in city fortifications means that your defenders will kill  50% more attackers, thus gaining more points than in a regular fight without walls. That bias the point share a lot.  There also may be some penalty for attacking a foe city with much lower level than you (there was an old post from a moderator suggesting that). 

Assassins produce defending casualties without offensive loses, thus generating a net point gain. 

Unfortunately, the scoring rules of the challenges are not explained anywhere. We are constantly urged to participate in a challenge whose rules are unknown. Weird. Isn't it?





UTC +0:00
ThatBloke
24 January, 2016, 1:01 PM UTC

The use of walls is only supposed to enhance defenders' power.


The number of killed troops on both sides is what it is.


That's why the ranking is strange. It should follow the number of casualties done, but it doesn't.


On the other hand, we're been experiencing an even stranger phenomenon during the last tournament : almost none of the casualties we have sustained during pantheons attacks gave us any points, except when a large number of our defenders were killed.

This in turn is very unfair, considering how many units were killed in the end, for nothing in exchange.

I don't know if attackers get points : they should logically get some when they manage to kill troops inside the pantheon, but most of the time, they just smash their offense for no result. I'm wondering if commitiing those massive suicides is worth any points, but if it's the case, then it's a strange concept of a war game, really, when you get nothing for successfully defending, and get points for blindlessly dumping troops...


I pity the fool
UTC +11:00
mikeythegreat1000
24 January, 2016, 2:45 PM UTC
john_zed said:

cool

UTC +7:00
plautoq
24 January, 2016, 5:11 PM UTC
cool
UTC +5:00
Uncle Junior
25 January, 2016, 9:28 AM UTC

Tel said:


This is an interesting read. My coa is currently at war with another and despite having a much higher units destroyed figure (more than double) we are behind on points albeit not by many. We have had very successful raids destroying large numbers of units but cannot close the gap. 

I'm thinking about the comment from uncle junior "Defender will always be victorious, given that no Greek Assassins were used". Our situation is that the coa we are at war with just rely on and love to use assassins. One of our players had assassins land in excess of 1/hour average within a 24 hour period (33 to be exact). The difficulty is trying to gauge where the balance changes ie how many assassins will mean that the "Defender will always be victorious" equation will no longer be so.


I'm sure there is no clear answer .. I'm just thinking out loud and wishing that Greek Assassins were not part of the game. Okay, so it can often be more of a drachma fight than anything else - but 33 assassins in 24 hours just takes this to a silly level. Of course, Plarium are smiling !!

Theory is this, cheap units killing expensive units should give the most points and defender, for some reason, has an advantage, that applies to production units. Assassin makes the most pointing difference, assassin will die anyway therefore the opponent didn't kill anything.

Ensuring your victory would be using defensive troops  to defend your own cities and opponents cities that you sieged, and using greek assassins as offensive unit.

Most top coalitions are opposed to the concept that defenders score most points and hate greek assassins, so war's are not as common as they should be.

†terminators†
UTC +0:00
Ashu
28 January, 2016, 7:33 AM UTC

What is the criteria for completing charon's chosen achievement, I find it strange when I see DEATH INC. coalition has achieved level 2 of Athena's Elect coalition achievement and nothing in the charon's chosen achievement,  Does the achievement we have unlocked in charon's chosen gets erased when we lose a challenge? 

Its a query, please can somebody answer

Look at a Diamond, the hardest thing in the world, yet so transparent
UTC +5:00
Basileus Leonidas
Administrator
28 January, 2016, 10:17 AM UTC

Sometimes challenges can be not that glorious, so Coalition doesn't earn a lot of points. 

War doesn't determine who is right - only who is left.
UTC +0:00
Hundigo
30 January, 2016, 12:14 AM UTC

the best way for a challenge or war is indeed to do nothing at all. When you defend , you gain more points, but even when you don't defend and keep everything in your acropolis, you shall win if the other one is challenging you. 



You can win , even without using assasins, but it's not up to me to tell you that. My coalition was able to it -)
UTC +0:00
diego5012
7 May, 2016, 6:38 PM UTC
I want to learn and join a faction
UTC +6:00
1725482 users registered; 43171 topic; 271707 posts; our newest member:Efestion