Allies: Invading vs. Defending || Upcoming Council Meeting

View this post on The Council website HERE.

In regards to an issue that has arisen once now in each of the last three wars, I believe the discrepancies surrounding when allies are permitted and forbidden must be clarified (and modified).

The incident which continues to occur is when a defending army, often in an act of desperation, brings an ally to help it defend its server at the last minute. The invading army, in response, brings one of their allies in an attempt to balance the sides. While the action of the defending army is currently legal, the response by the invading army is not. It is understandable why this is controversial.

Invading a server is intended to be difficult. Original army rules regarding invasions required one army to surrender, or for the battle to go on literally to the point that every member of the defending army had given up and left the server. Battles lasting over 3 hours were common in major wars. This is not the case anymore, as many of us insist that invasions should only last 30 minutes, and that having “better tactics” should be good enough to win an invasion.

Call me old school, but I find the newer approach to invasions promotes laziness amongst soldiers and leaders alike. Instead, I prefer to find the median of the two – the rules that are currently in place – which require “Clear Victory” in order to win an invasion (This may be modified by the institution of a committee to judge invasion results – See Council Meeting section below). The purpose of the 24 Hour Rule is to assure the defending army has sufficient notification that they will need to defend their server. For this reason, we also require allies of the invading army to schedule the invasion as well. For example, you would probably like to know in advance that the army you are facing is going to bring two other large armies to help them so that you can prepare your own allies as well. The reason there is no rule regarding defending armies is simply because there is no need to notify the invading army, as they will be invading either way.

Judging by the number of controversies regarding this rule, I believe it needs to be modified a bit. The issue at hand is that defending armies are often bringing allies last minute, which causes an imbalance in the sides of the battle. To compensate for this, in addition to requiring allies of the invading army who will be helping in the battle to schedule with 24 hours notice, allies planning to help the defending army must provide 12 hours notice. Any last minute defense of an ally’s server will result in the same disqualification as would an ally of an invading army, with the exception that invalid allies intentionally used by defending armies would result in the loss of their server, not simply a lost opportunity to invade.

At this point, this is merely a suggestion, although initial responses to the idea seem positive after I ran it by leaders involved in the most recent discrepancy. In order to implement it fully, as well as to discuss other issues regarding rules and The Council in general, we will be having a meeting this weekend. All major army leaders and Council representatives are welcome.

What: CP Army Council Meeting

When: Saturday, January 12th

Who: Major Army Leaders/Council Representatives

Why: Rule Changes, Judging Committee, Ideas/Suggestions

Where: xat.com/CPArmyCouncil

Times: 12:30 pm PST, 1:30 pm MST, 2:30 pm CST, 3:30 pm EST, 8:30 pm UK

As a last note, a section has been added to the Server Invasions page on The Council website, which has a running score of who is winning each of the active wars among major armies. Feel free to check that out HERE.

~Boomer

18 Responses

  1. FIRST BEAT DAT MCH!

    Like

  2. we jsut won the nachos again haha. it was 5 to 20 the whole time

    Like

  3. Boomer – If we do stop having time limited battles, I would like to see you fight for 3 hours in a battle. *insert troll face*

    Boomer: I’ve done it, and it’s not a lot of fun after the first hour and a half, but I’m not proposing we get rid of timed battles, we just need a better way to determine their outcome (and maybe not end them quite so early).

    Like

    • As I recall we fought a few 1 or 2+ hour battles under Boomer in ACP. They weren’t fun, but at least someone won… However I’m also not saying every battle should be that long, but they shouldn’t be 30 minutes either.

      Like

      • Considering the average age of people in CP Warfare has been falling, and younger children become distracted/bored more easily than us “tweens” and “teens”, I think 30 minutes is a reasonable time. What we really need is some sort of mathmatic formula to see which army is performing the best at the event to determine the winner. Ex, Percentage of soldiers doing the tactic + average size + maximum size. (Made this in 2 seconds, obviously flawed, just saying we need something like this) (I also have been to several 2 hour events. When an event lasts two hours, most soldiers start leaving after the hour and 15 minute mark.)

        Like

  4. This is solely my opinion, and I hope Boomer sees this. The battles should not have a time limit, and here is why: no troop will stay on CP for 3 hours (duh) but if the army was really more powerful than the other, they would have enough troops to change the ones that have to leave. Not only that, this move would create far more advanced tactics, as it make leaders decide a time to strike the enemy with full force or just try claiming a room during the battle. I will explain it more on chat.

    Boomer: I agree for the most part, and you are correct that going back a few years, the battles were extended because soldiers would come and go throughout the battle, so it wasn’t like everyone was there for the entire 3 hour period.

    Like

  5. 30 minutes battle is reasonable, I mean this isn’t 2008 where we stay on Club Penguin for 3 hours straight throwing snowballs at the other army – BORING. Plus, we have stuff to do in real life as well, so it’s better to have a time limit.

    Like

  6. Its not bad boomer. But we should have a time limit. Up to 1 hour. And It should be based mostly on size. If both have the same size at the end. Then we look at the tatics.

    Like

  7. I agree with Boomer again. 😦

    Boomer: Is that such a bad thing? xD

    Like

  8. If people remove the time limit then battles will turn into stakeouts, and the army that stays on the server for the longest will win. This will be the case for opponents who are evenly matched, such as ACP and the Dark Defenders.

    Like

  9. Why not say after an hour and both armies still have good sizes it ends in a draw. And if there is a clear winner or an army surrenders before the hour we have a victor.

    Like

  10. No time limit –
    Tactics and size won’t be needed, it will be last man standing.
    1 man army invading ACP and just standing there until ACP gives up.

    Like

  11. i should give u people an idea, make something called a referee.There will be a referee website and people will go to wars, random ones like acp and nachos. If it has been an 1 long there will be a majoraty vote with the referees.If more people go in one side of the team they win, but u cant just say that the other team won because u like it. Anyone agree?

    Like

What do YOU think? Comment your opinion!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: