Connection ErrorBad RequestSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Error Details:
Share Link
Posts from Let's talk about our Red Rush strategy...
The main problem with a red rush is that for every 1 real red rush, there are 10 "red rushes" where a hero with growth stumbles upon an opponent's scout hero or an empty castle. It is precisely for this reason that the idea of allowing red rush is being pushed forward, and not at all out of a desire to help the red player. That is, to make the flow of the game more natural and less burdened by rules.
What in that case prevents changing the wording, so that the red rush is only prohibited if the attack is on an opponent's town/garrison/hero that contains more than 30% of their forces, for example. Thus, you can hit scout heroes and towns with leftover forces, but not the main army. After all, it's visually clear even whom you are hitting: a scout hero, a reinforcement caravan, or the main army.
What, in that case, prevents us from changing the wording so that red-rush is only forbidden when attacking an opponent's town/garrison/hero containing more than 30% of their forces, for example? This way, you could hit scout heroes and towns with trash, but not the main forces. After all, you can even see by eye who you are hitting — a scout hero, a reinforcement caravan, or the main force.
That's precisely the problem — it's not always visible by eye. A clear criterion is needed that leaves no room for ambiguity in interpretation.
The 30% option doesn't work because you don't know the total power to calculate 30% from it. And asking your opponent while the timer is ticking is not very convenient.
The main problem with red-rush is that for every 1 genuine red-rush, there are 10 "red-rushes" where a hero with growth stumbles upon an opponent's scout hero or an empty castle. This is precisely why the idea of allowing red-rush is being pushed, and not at all out of a desire to help the red player. That is, to make the flow of the game more natural and less encumbered by rules.
This is truly a huge evil! Yesterday I watched Amil's stream; on his second [week] he gathered 16! angels, picked up a Dragon Utopia, and headed to the opponent. On [day] 1[week]3[month]1 he takes the opponent's secondary town, buys the extra growth of 7 orcs, and makes a formal red-rush by attacking a scout hero with 1 pegasus. Of course, formally the game is lost and this is very unpleasant because some rule-nerd would demand a tech loss from you. And thank God LeBron is not one of those. But how unpleasant is it for the player himself, in the heat of battle, to fail like that over such a trifle?? This is an absolute nightmare. And earlier, some may remember, on the portal I especially read such reports with a red-rush: they put a scout hero with 1 unit in the metro, the opponent comes with a full buyout, attacks and automatically gets a red-rush! How amusing? And a tech loss, great. This is stupid nerdery, not a game.
b) on the heroes or guarded mines of Blue, if the presence of growth can affect the outcome of the battle or the losses in the battle for any of the players. Thus, how can the purchased growth affect the outcome of a battle with a scout hero — the scout hero has a tiny army, while the attacking RedRasher has tactics and haste. IN NO WAY — the scout hero dies. Or should this point b) be understood differently, and killing such a scout hero is not allowed?
A hardcore player would demand such rules for themselves.
You're exaggerating; no one would want to create such a reputation. But the line between the letter and the spirit of the rules is also blurry: can I take a scroll or a mine past a moved guard to progress (I don't need them myself)?, once, a long time ago, I decided to level up Vidomina (I was playing without skeletons, but I had mastered the Necropolis faction) - my opponent demanded a restart - was he wrong? Therefore, it's _easier_ to only follow the letter of the rules, and if an opponent took those 7 Orcs, you can always claim it was an accidental click when taking an auto-battle. An obviously illogical action is quite forgivable.
a hardcore player would demand technical support for himself.
In that case, there was no violation of the rules. But it turns out you are capable of violating a rule and then still insulting your opponent, which is unworthy behavior on your part. On the website, I had an opponent who violated a rule even less significantly, and it didn't offer him any advantage, so he himself offered to have a technical defeat written for him, and this was in a tournament.
Dirty_Player: Why don't we count the pluses of the blue color? The fact that a blue player settling in a Castle immediately replenishes mana after ending their turn, while a red player can be caught in the city without mana. And not just on the first day of the week, but every day. Firstly, red doesn't go without mana every day and certainly doesn't conquer Castles every day where it is absolutely necessary to replenish mana (mana replenishment in a Castle happens maybe 2 times per game maximum, considering the possibility of being caught off guard, because often these are various wells or mana vortexes); circumstances need to align, and you yourself shouldn't be expecting an attack, among other things.
- On the 1st week, your case can basically be ignored since it's almost a 100% tech rest upon meeting, and the encounter itself is rare and very easy to foresee. - On the 2nd week perhaps this happens most often, well, maybe some times, no more, maybe once more on the 3rd; even that is frequent, there are other things to do besides replenishing in Castles. Now imagine how many chances you have to catch them, considering that the player clearly doesn't want to be caught without mana and scouts the clearing?
Secondly, red is ONE TURN AHEAD for the whole game, and how would the situation change if red simply stood on the road and blue attacked them without mana? The same thing can happen just on the road with blue, when they are without mana but not in a Castle, rather on the road.
As for the specific situation of replenishing mana in a Castle. It is much more critical for blue that, for example, red captured a Castle (even if they have no mana), but instead, on this day you can increase your scouting by sending own peasants further into the dark from the Castle, thus detecting the territory for dangers and, in an extreme case, retreating home or accepting battle within the Castle walls. The red ball completely removes this mana version, so then blue is just resting with this tiny perk. This is a shamefully small chance to even set as a counterweight to red-rush, isn't it? This advantage is questionable; BUT I play RED! For me, this is not a problem at all, you can always leave 3 playable castles: Dungeon, Swamp, Castle, Rampart and Conflux, Necropolis, Barbarian. I cannot imagine how blue could deprive me of all this :) I'll mark the 3rd as some castle that doesn't suit me, and there is always something to play. What nonsense? On the contrary, your thought is deeper than you voiced it. It actually happens more often that on the 7th day red might come based on logic and blue will lose their entire 7th day of development for the sake of returning power and fighting in the Castle, and then a friend, growth, and red-rush. In this sense, blue is also weaker because they have to defend against red-rush and also need to know where the red main hero is. You write so loudly: skillfully used. Where is the skill? Just buy up growth and attack with an advantage? :D No brain needed here; perhaps blue has many problems trying to avoid it! Skillful players playing red will almost always use this rule to their advantage with a huge percentage.Growth can be passed by a chain; nothing will need to be abandoned.I already talked about the mark, and there are only 2 restarts in the season now, so spending them is basically necessary only with a miserable layout, regardless of the opponent's layout. Even if there are 3 in total, it's a questionable advantage. You might deal g or cool 5 times in a row.
Other red-rush perks:
1. During the game (especially with HL+U computers) at the stage of 3-5 weeks, each player may have several different castles built or doubles; so, by buying up all this stuff, red-rush matters even more, and not as Wicc puts it "the further along, the less its possibility". 2. In any prolonged game, red has a simply huge advantage, since you can always either accept battle in the capital (in the Castle that the opponent might take) or attack with growth! Here blue is simply in a hopeless situation all other things being equal, and red will always strive to develop this advantage!
3. Dima Surmay: Red can double mana on the first day of the week, while blue with a much lower probability could do it on the 7th day of the week, again if red decides to do FB on their turn on the first day. 4. Red can pressure the opponent with bluffing more successfully, using the red-rush rule as such. Wicc: The main advantage of red is the first move, meaning extra tempo in exploring the territory. This matters for the first week or two. Then red-rush on 131Is that not enough?And also buying up all units, of which there will be even more growth in Castles! Doubles and other units in the hero's army! The same mana vortex in the Dungeon on the 1st day of the week can be used by red before blue and have an additional plus in magic, as well as the magic lake (I don't remember what it's called)! Collecting external dwellings with scouts, upgrading, and you can leave your Castles without fear, since you've already bought everything needed. And the longer the game drags on, the greater the power of red-rush will be! Artifacts for creatures, external dwellings, portals will also add strength. Countering red-rush is elementary to a fault — don't leave power on 127 (1x7) within the opponent's reach. And if they are eyeing a key city, meet them on 127 and fight in the field.This is already a loss of tempo, meaning you constantly need to spend moves on these manipulations, think about where to move them, fill stacks with unnecessary units. But even this is not a panacea! I'm eyeing your city, and you're showing off with money. For example, I am Kirya, and you are Taz; my turn is longer, I can run far, stop during the turn, make a building (for example, a Castle in the capital), you bought up, passed the turn and stand unaccelerated — that's one; didn't do something useful or planned — two; and there wasn't enough money for the building — three! Money situations are very common; often it is not possible to buy up completely and build up on 117. You have to choose either a building or buying up. The week comes, I buy up and simply red-rush or go somewhere my own way from the break, or turn into some treasure zone on the way, while you lost tempo and the building. I would probably place Kostya's appropriate words right here :)With skillful play from blue, yes. But if red also plays skillfully, then the skillful play of blue might not work, while the red-rush rule will work regardless of how red plays.
And here are probably your arguments, Wicc:Amazing, and I and Dima probably didn't know that a full buy-up for one and the lack of it for another is a finishing factor :D Wicc, YES! - On 127 there can basically be a situation where blue simply cannot win and will be smashed to pieces like plywood over Paris! Question: why would they seek contact? And red can spend the whole game trying to kill blue, while blue just runs away. That's two!
remove the unexplained caveat that it is impossible to capture cities with a growth bonus, even if the growth bonus did not affect the outcome of the battle
I'm already tired of this RR.
Play 10 games on Castle, and if you win 2-3 of them using RR, then I'll agree that it's effective.
I don't have time for that many games; I'd rather play in tournaments. 10 games is not enough to draw conclusions; you need to play many more.
I didn't mean to talk about that. If, out of your 10 losses (let's say you lost 10 games to different players over some time), 2 losses occur when the red rush rule is in effect and it somehow manifests itself, giving red an advantage, then that will be a clear indicator that the rule has a significant impact. This rule doesn't necessarily have to guarantee a 100% win in the final battle. The influence can be indirect and affect various aspects of the game, thereby exerting pressure that leads to a loss. There can be a huge number of such factors, and in a lost game, you can always find them for the red player (especially in drawn-out games on High Level +).
Besides, it's quite easy to play against the rule itself. You can simply build a fortress on 127 and lose to blue, and then say, "Well, there was no RR." The point is not about who wins, but about the influence of RR in favor of red. A higher-skilled player may win without even noticing this rule, but in a game between equally skilled players, it will still take its toll to some extent.
If you really want to test the rule, play as blue against everyone and allow all your opponents to use RR. In SOD. And then, when you have about 30 losses, analyze them.
