Forum: empire-en
Board: [584] Players ask Players
Topic: [76268] Strange defeat
[-76268]
Gargantua99 [None]
:: Aug. 26, 2012, 9 p.m.
I sent this attack to a level 45 player... it doesn't jive with past experience and I am level 60 and have made many attacks.
[1380961]
swag like ohio3 [None]
:: Aug. 26, 2012, 9:04 p.m.
that must suck!
[1380967]
Baldrick (GB1) [None]
:: Aug. 26, 2012, 9:11 p.m.
I'd say he's using defence tools from the armourer and all his defenders were veterans. It makes a big difference. Here's a report of mine using vets and armourer tools for defence.
[1380968]
Gargantua99 [None]
:: Aug. 26, 2012, 9:15 p.m.
That can't be...if you look you will see that I used ruby tools and he only had level 3 walls and towers...that means he somehow won the middle and the left flank with 200 defenders against ruby tools...not likely.
It didn't attach but I sent full ruby tools in the centre as well...including rams.
I'm just wondering if perhaps I'm missing something here...
It didn't attach but I sent full ruby tools in the centre as well...including rams.
I'm just wondering if perhaps I'm missing something here...
[1380972]
Baldrick (GB1) [None]
:: Aug. 26, 2012, 9:21 p.m.
Hmmm, does seem a bit strange but the armourer tools are very powerful. And if he had veteran defenders too....
Plus he didn't win it with 200 defenders he won it with 3 waves of 200 defenders so that's 600 total.
I posted something about the armourer a while ago, it's really tough to beat them unless you use them.
Standard ruby tools are becoming obsolete i'm afraid.
Plus he didn't win it with 200 defenders he won it with 3 waves of 200 defenders so that's 600 total.
I posted something about the armourer a while ago, it's really tough to beat them unless you use them.
Standard ruby tools are becoming obsolete i'm afraid.
[1380974]
Baldrick (GB1) [None]
:: Aug. 26, 2012, 9:23 p.m.
Oh, did you spy on him first? That would tell you what tools he was using...
[1380977]
Gargantua99 [None]
:: Aug. 26, 2012, 9:32 p.m.
I did not spy...but he had level 3 walls...so he only had 3 tool slots plus 2 for gate reinforcement.
The 600 defenders number only works if he lost no soldiers and I use the armourer tools for defense... with them I defended an attack of 971 troops using RESOURCE siege tools only and lost 733 of my 4,724 defenders...VET defenders...that was with a level 3 wall in my sands castle.
The 600 defenders number only works if he lost no soldiers and I use the armourer tools for defense... with them I defended an attack of 971 troops using RESOURCE siege tools only and lost 733 of my 4,724 defenders...VET defenders...that was with a level 3 wall in my sands castle.
[1380980]
Gargantua99 [None]
:: Aug. 26, 2012, 9:35 p.m.
here is a report from yesterday of my defense..i had vet defenders and armourer tools...including a ruby moat with armourer tools.
The attacker used only resource tools.
The attacker used only resource tools.
[1380984]
Baldrick (GB1) [None]
:: Aug. 26, 2012, 9:36 p.m.
Hmm, my advice would be to spy now and see what's in there. If it still seems strange take it up with support.
Good luck
Good luck
[1380987]
Gargantua99 [None]
:: Aug. 26, 2012, 9:40 p.m.
I have already messaged support...it seems very strange to me.
[1380991]
LOL LOL2 [None]
:: Aug. 26, 2012, 9:45 p.m.
Gargantua99 wrote: »That can't be...if you look you will see that I used ruby tools and he only had level 3 walls and towers...that means he somehow won the middle and the left flank with 200 defenders against ruby tools...not likely.
It didn't attach but I sent full ruby tools in the centre as well...including rams.
I'm just wondering if perhaps I'm missing something here...
Yes this is strange, to win with 200 defenders but it all depends on the tools he used.
[1380992]
Gargantua99 [None]
:: Aug. 26, 2012, 9:52 p.m.
Did you see the last report I posted? I used armorer tools in defense there and the attacker used RESOURCE tools.
I lost WAY more men than this player did
I lost WAY more men than this player did
[1380993]
DarkDarkDima238 [None]
:: Aug. 26, 2012, 9:54 p.m.
I had one of those problems in defense though. How could 130 ranged veteran defenders kill 0 soldiers out of 52 ranged attackers who were all normal 4 food consuming soldiers. I killed 0 with a 10% bonus from moat. They didn't return my troops after a month.
[1380997]
Gargantua99 [None]
:: Aug. 26, 2012, 9:56 p.m.
The only way this report even seem plausible is if he was using armourers tools AND none of my ruby tools were used in the battle.
[1380998]
LOL LOL2 [None]
:: Aug. 26, 2012, 10:01 p.m.
well itits going to be kinda hard ot help you discover what happened since we have no idea what tools he had and such 3 tool slots and 2 gate and also moat
[1381000]
Gargantua99 [None]
:: Aug. 26, 2012, 10:03 p.m.
My point is it doesn't matter what tools he had...even with the best it is impossible for him to lose only 210 defenders while defending the middle and one flank...assuming that my ruby tools factored into the battle.
So let's start with the assumption that he had armoureres tools...it still makes no sense to me.
So let's start with the assumption that he had armoureres tools...it still makes no sense to me.
[1381015]
DarkDarkDima238 [None]
:: Aug. 26, 2012, 10:41 p.m.
I totally agree with you Gargantua99.
[1381017]
Baldrick (GB1) [None]
:: Aug. 26, 2012, 10:44 p.m.
Yeah, it does seem like it may be the tool bug. Why don't you ask the defender to screenshot the report then send it to support? You never know he might be a nice guy.
[1381024]
pugsley2 [None]
:: Aug. 26, 2012, 11:05 p.m.
Hmmm, does seem a bit strange but the armourer tools are very powerful. And if he had veteran defenders too....
Plus he didn't win it with 200 defenders he won it with 3 waves of 200 defenders so that's 600 total.
I posted something about the armourer a while ago, it's really tough to beat them unless you use them.
Standard ruby tools are becoming obsolete i'm afraid.
yeah.. too much dependent on rubies..
[1381027]
Aaa343 [None]
:: Aug. 26, 2012, 11:13 p.m.
ask the defender, my only suggestion is that if he had alliance support, it would make more sense