Skip to content

Posts from Let's talk about our Red Rush strategy...

No ratings yet — be the first to rate!
Closed
Ban or allow Red Rush:
54 voters
Multiple choice Public votes Closed 2013-09-20
This poll is closed.
allow on XL+U templates
50% 27 votes
Leave the ban on XL+U templates in place
50% 27 votes
allow on the Diamond template
25.9% 14 votes
leave the ban on the Diamond template
55.6% 30 votes
allow on the Mini-Nostalgia template
27.8% 15 votes
leave the restriction on the Mini-Nostalgia template
53.7% 29 votes
User Avatar
Auto-translated
This thread contains a discussion about the red-rush rule.

The poll in this thread concerns the allowance/prohibition of red-rush on XL+U, Diamond, and Mini-Nostalgia maps.

Please pay attention - there are 3 polls in one here!
You need to answer 3 times!

3.1. Red-rush is prohibited: the player playing as red is prohibited from attacking on the first day of the week with reinforcements purchased on that day:
a) on the blue Castle (even if the Castle is not guarded);
b) on blue heroes or guarded mines, if the presence of reinforcements can affect the outcome of the battle or losses in the battle for either player.

The concept of red-rush does not apply when the heroes of opposing players are on opposite sides of the Portal or Underground Gate during an attack, if red cannot see where the blue hero is.

Clarification 1. Reinforcements are considered to be:
troops that appear at the beginning of a new week in the dwellings of the player's cities (villages) or in cities (villages) of a human or computer opponent captured on that day;

Clarification 2. The following are not considered reinforcements and can be used without restrictions:
troops not purchased in the previous week;
troops from neutral cities and villages captured on that day;
troops arriving with purchased heroes and heroes from freed prisons;
troops from Outer Dwellings ("caches") and troops from Summoning Portals;
troops from Pandora's Boxes, Griffin Conservatories, Serpent Nests, Seer Huts, Refugee Camps.

Clarification 3. It is allowed to upgrade any troops.

Clarification 4. If it is impossible to distinguish old troops from reinforcement troops (mixing in a hero or in a Castle), it is considered that reinforcements are lost in battles with neutrals. Until the reinforcements are mixed with old troops, they are considered reinforcements, regardless of the losses of the old army. *

Clarification 6. In a game involving more than two human players, the rule applies consistently to other colors (blue-rush, brown-rush...).
In a game with player alliances, reinforcements also include the reinforcements of the ally. **

* For example, if 4 horses were bought on day 121, adding to the 2 horses already present, and 3 horses were lost in a battle with neutrals, then when attacking an opponent, you can use two horses, and one should be dismissed/left in the Castle/transferred to another hero. But if, on the way home, the old army suffered losses of one horse, and only then mixed with the reinforcements, then when attacking an opponent, you can use only one horse.

** For example, in an alliance between brown and red players, brown cannot use red's reinforcements to attack green, in accordance with paragraph 3.1.

Voting errors:
Maestro_pro
I reread the rule and realized that I put the checkmark in the wrong place. I am voting for points 2, 4, and 6.
Myxomoar
It turns out that I voted for the ban on Diamond... It was a misclick, if that's the case, I'm for unbanning everywhere.
Auto-translated
Recently, I was surprised to discover that the rules for Haven in the HL+U template do not allow for redraws. In the rules for Haven, Fortress, and Stronghold, redraws are allowed. Perhaps it would make sense to make it consistent with the rest?
Награда: Лучшему игроку сезона Осень 2009 за замок Конфлюкс
In reply to Medium_HP
User Avatar
Auto-translated
And why does red get such an advantage? Explain. It's a different story in the Trading Tavern, where red pays during auctions.
Земля нуля.
Все в ней нулево и кукольно.
In reply to Oelm
Auto-translated
Oelm
Why does red get such an advantage? Explain. It's a different story in the trading phase, where red pays.
Well, at least because the opponent chooses the castle first, and blue has an advantage in the restart phase.
But the main thing is for consistency, so that there are fewer minor nuances of the rules to remember for each resource.
Награда: Лучшему игроку сезона Осень 2009 за замок Конфлюкс
In reply to Medium_HP
User Avatar
Auto-translated
But the red one will be available a day earlier, and it will be free, which is probably not a good thing, in my opinion.
Земля нуля.
Все в ней нулево и кукольно.
In reply to Oelm
Auto-translated
The initial choice of castle and the second word during restarts – these are also freebies. One can argue endlessly about which freebie is better and more advantageous.
The main point here is that lifting this ban will lead to uniformity in the rules and their simplification. And that's a good thing.
Награда: Лучшему игроку сезона Осень 2009 за замок Конфлюкс
Auto-translated
The rules contain the following clause:
5.1. The so-called "red rush" is prohibited, meaning that a player playing with the red color is not allowed to attack on the first day of the week with reinforcements purchased on that day:
a) on a blue Castle (even if the Castle is not guarded)
b) on blue Heroes or guarded Mines, if the presence of reinforcements can affect the outcome of the battle or losses in the battle for either player.

Question - why is there a distinction between points a and b?
What is the deep meaning behind this?
Why are the requirements for attacking a Castle more stringent?
In reply to Grando
User Avatar
Auto-translated
So, is RR still prohibited for HL+U?
How can one effectively counter the blue faction in the late game?
In reply to Grando
Auto-translated
Pit for LM
To ensure that the opponents are on a more or less equal footing, either allow Blue to buy out the growth (which will appear in the Castle, not in the mine), or have both fight without growth, or Red must ensure a chain of supply for its growth (i.e., first capture a Castle, and then transfer new troops there).

Firstly, the goal of "allowing Blue to buy out the growth" is questionable. Whether or not Blue will have this opportunity should depend on how the opponents have played up to that point.

The correct goal is "To ensure that the opponents are on a more or less equal footing." But this goal is fully resolved by the stipulation that the presence of growth in the army should not affect the outcome of the battle.

I am simply pointing out that the existing stipulation (the presence of growth should not affect the outcome of the battle) already puts the opponents on the most equal footing when it comes to capturing cities.
If Blue is capable of offering at least some resistance, then Red is already obliged to take the city with what it has at the beginning of the week, and then ensure a chain of supply. This is already in the rules.

But with the current wording, where cities are treated differently, it turns out that Blue may not defend the cities at all, and Red must still deal with the chains.
And if he doesn't sort out the chains, he cannot, for example, use his last hero in the chain to take an empty intermediate city and settle there with growth. And Blue will retaliate with growth.

For now, it still looks not entirely clear.
In reply to =Stinger=
User Avatar
Auto-translated
=Stinger=
So, does PP remain forbidden for HL+U? How do you deal with the blue color in the late game then?
Actually, what are the advantages of blue besides mana regeneration and the ability to attack with a bonus on the first day of the week, on top of your already purchased growth? (considering that this is quite problematic on XL+U). And what's wrong with attacking on the first day after gathering from hidden spots and portals? The main advantage still lies with red.
In reply to HellLighT
Auto-translated
HellLighT
actually, what are the advantages of blue besides replenishing mana and the ability to attack with an increase on the first day of the week, on top of your already purchased increase? (considering that this is quite problematic on XL+U) And what's wrong with attacking on the first day after collecting from hidden locations and portals? The main advantage still lies with red.
There have already been many restarts, and besides mana, there is also increased income when the turn passes... and some minor things...
And restarts in general are evil. They don't give anything but prolonging the game time and spoiling the gaming mood. It's far from certain that after using all the allowed restarts, the optimal outcome will appear. So, what's the point of all this fuss? Essentially, it's the same as playing from the first generation, only prolonged. (We're not talking about blocks here).
In reply to Grando
Auto-translated
I raised the topic of red rush, and I believe that my question about red rush remains unanswered.
/topic/at/666870/
I wasn't asking why it is banned, but why it is banned specifically in this way. That is, a stronger restriction applies to cities than to the rest of the map.
It is not yet clear what exactly prevents blue from defending cities if they are valuable to him. And if blue defends, then red can no longer attack with reinforcements. Why should additional difficulties be created for red?
User Avatar
Auto-translated
Oldboy
I raised the issue of red rush, and I believe that my question about red rush remains unanswered.
I wasn't asking why it was banned, but why it was banned in this particular way.
Unfortunately, I am unable to answer your question. It will remain unanswered.
This is the only point from the initial rules that I haven't had time to edit. In the second edition, I simply copied it unchanged from the first. The author of our original rules, invisible, took the wording from the Portal. Why red rush is banned in this specific way and what deep meaning there is behind it, I don't know. I think there is no political subtext here, and the author of the rules didn't harbor hatred towards red since the Civil War, nor did he have a fondness for blue.
Oldboy
It is not yet clear what exactly prevents blue from defending cities if they are valuable to him.
What prevents him?
Oldboy
And if blue defends, then red can no longer attack with an increase. Why should additional difficulties be created for red?
Additional? Does red have few difficulties?
At one time, I was very interested in debates about which color is better. I analyzed statistics in tournaments. Last time, Valera GoedenDag calculated it in Favorites, but we didn't even post it on the forum. The win rate is approximately equal. A difference of 3-5%, sometimes favoring red, sometimes favoring blue.
Oldboy
Firstly, the goal - "to give blue the opportunity to buy out the increase" - is a dubious goal. Whether or not blue will have such an opportunity should depend on how the opponents played up to that point.
But with the current wording, where there is a special approach to cities, it turns out that blue may not defend cities at all, and red must still deal with chains.
And if he doesn't figure out the chains, he won't be able to, for example, take an empty intermediate city with his last hero in the chain and settle there with an increase. And blue will strike back precisely with an increase.
Blue fundamentally lacks the ability to buy out red's increase during the first day of the week.
Everything else depends on the players themselves. I completely agree; whether blue has plans to buy out something, and red has plans to build chains, this is a matter of game strategy between the opponents. If blue believes that giving away his city without troops would be very advantageous, then, of course, he can choose not to defend cities; it's his decision.
In general, I already wrote that this is a question of tactics. The ban/permission of red rush is just a different game, nothing more. You need to clearly know how the rule is formulated and think about how to benefit from it.
In reply to Pit for LM
Auto-translated
Pit for LM
In general, I already wrote that this is a matter of tactics. Banning/allowing rush attacks changes the game, and that's it. You need to clearly know how the rule is formulated and think about how to benefit from it.

Okay. Then, a more practical question.

In my tournament game, I was playing as Blue. My opponent captured my outpost town (unbuilt) by attacking with a reinforcement. I had one fly guarding it. He killed it with an arrow attack.

According to the rules, he couldn't do that. He attacked the hero at the end of the chain, which is exactly the situation I'm asking about.

Furthermore, he had a town portal, so it didn't really matter how he took the town – whether he did it this way or not. And in the game, I had already decided everything based on this situation. Namely, it doesn't matter, let's move on; it's still an unclear rule (in reality, the rules were re-read during the game immediately after the attack, and I even agreed in ICQ that he could do it that way).

But, let's say the rules were written to be effective – in this case, should we seriously penalize a strong opponent, or force a replay of the turn? But I don't see the point of the rule. And even if he didn't have a town portal, meaning the hero at the end of the chain ended up with a reduced army without reinforcements, I would counterattack with reinforcements – again, I don't see the point of the rule.

The question is – is there really anyone who would say that it was possible to penalize the opponent or at least insist on replaying the turn? If so, I still want to know – what is the deep meaning behind it? And if not, then why have a rule that no one wants to apply?

In general, the question remains open. The game is still ongoing; we'll finish it, and I'll provide the save files, although the passwords are currently unknown.
In reply to Pit for LM
User Avatar
Auto-translated
I'm already considering that the most sensible thing to do would be to cancel the rush strategy.

Statistics

Welcome our newest member: Emil