Unfair Wars need to stop!

[DuggansDen]

Unfair Wars

several times we have encountered Cities with less players than us, who hit hard during the opening hour: ensure they’re in front then stay shielded for over 24 hours. this is a completely unfair tactic to win, as it denies all of our members from being allowed to participate. 

For us, this is a completely unfair and unreasonable way to win a war. And is completely unfair to participate in wars this way. 

Here he is some solutions we have compiled:

• Compulsory forfeit for any team that stays completely shielded for more than 12 hours
• Automaric unshielding after 12 hours of  being shielded 
• a surrender option
• a withdraw from war after 12hours option without penalty,  then allow you to start another war immediatkely.  (Which would allow you to not let a team that does this win)
• Some sort of boost that allows you to unshield oppositions which remain shielded
• Calling the war a Draw if one team stays completely shielded for more than 50% of the war. Split the spoils 

we need to keep this game fun fun to play.  And this tactic of staying shielded makes it deeply depressing to play 

please do something to resolve this. 

[5a448135aa2740c5 · Accepted solution]

If you're playing a small team and they hit you hard enough to score more points than you can get by putting them all under the shield one time, then they stay under the shield for the rest of the game, that's not fair or sporting. I'd vote for something that says that, once you've done any rebuilding at all under the shield, the clock starts ticking and you have 6 hours of shield time. The advantage of this is that the small team doesn't get the benefit of rebuilding and getting war materiel with no consequence to pay for staying under the shield. The war, it seems to me, wasn't designed to consist of only 1 attack.

[Superpraesi]

Why it is unfair? All you have to do is, hitting back harder to ensure you are in front. I wood only agree to a surrender option. All your other solutions would turn a strategic game into a battle of material and this is not what thousands of people want to play and maybe have payed for.

[DuggansDen]

Clearly you are not in a team with 20+ players, from areas in different time zones from around the world;  or you wouldn’t make such a statement. It’s unfair because not all 20 players get a chance to participate and receive rewards.

Basically you’re playing a team of 10 and they get quickly shielded And if they attack first whilst others are offline, and get ahead, they stay shielded. Thus denying us any opportunity to even attack. 

Be a part of the solution, not the problem. 

[Superpraesi]

The size of my club varied between 10 and 20 members. At the moment we play with 18 members. Sometimes we lose against a team of 10 and sometimes we win. And most of the time it depends on how many members are online when the war starts.
If half the members of your club are not online when the war starts, do not be surprised that you have no chance against a well organized team of 10.
Before you demand a rule change, first try to change the factors that you can influence.
These are e.g. the start time of the war, the strategy or, in the last consequence, the size and composition of your team.

[DuggansDen]

Thats not a solution. And you are truly missing my point.

I’m just saying there has to be a better solution to half the members continuously having to miss out in points, rather than miss out in sleep

Co-ordinating an attack is fine if you can all be on. But when you operate in dozens of different time-zones across the day, it is not easy.

Sure, if those in the same time zone start a war so that they can be around for the start, it’s great!

We are a friendly club, and we try and go to great lengths to try and involve as many as we can. And we actually do care when our members miss out because of their time zone.

Unless you have anything constructive or helpful to suggest, please do not reply again.

[Aldebera]

We have a 20+ member club. Had the same issue against these small clubs. We changed our strategy and now it works against the small clubs and we get a LOT of points. Everyone gets to participate and the wars are fun again. While I agree that there should be a limit on how long a shield should last, I want you to know it is possible to counter these clubs very effectively. Unfortunately, I won’t share the strategy. I just want you to know it is possible.

[tammyking18]

You should limit the number of players in your club and play with people in similar time zones.

[tbob0520]

We have a team with 20+ players from around the world.  We do our best to start the attack when the majority of players are awake and able to participate.  It really does matter in the first hour if you are playing a small, organized team.  That said, I think an unshield in boost would add a fun dimension to the game.

[5a448135aa2740c5 · Accepted solution]

If you're playing a small team and they hit you hard enough to score more points than you can get by putting them all under the shield one time, then they stay under the shield for the rest of the game, that's not fair or sporting. I'd vote for something that says that, once you've done any rebuilding at all under the shield, the clock starts ticking and you have 6 hours of shield time. The advantage of this is that the small team doesn't get the benefit of rebuilding and getting war materiel with no consequence to pay for staying under the shield. The war, it seems to me, wasn't designed to consist of only 1 attack.

[DuggansDen]

I agree when it’s a small team v a big team.  There should be some consequence for the smaller team getting in front and staying shielded. It’s ufair on those who don’t get a chance to attack and not a nice way to win. Hiding to win just isn’t fair