Casual CW?

United Power wants to start a casual side to CWs. We are new & few (4,6,7,7), but want to get started right away. Any clan interested in a casual CW? 2 vs 2 (6,7) would be best for us at the moment, 3 vs 3 (6,7,7 or 4,6,7) is possible, too. We're flexible Pr or PM me anytime

I think a casual CW should be implemented. this should be moved to ideas & suggestions, though. (not to mini-mod, just topic like this needs to be seen)

Skrivet av Dr Lecter, 01.09.2013 at 23:48

I think a casual CW should be implemented. this should be moved to ideas & suggestions, though. (not to mini-mod, just topic like this needs to be seen)

Good idea. I was just gonna bull ahead & figure it out as it went, but I suppose I should clear it with someone. I'll get right on that. Thanks

My coalition would be happy for a casual CW were new also but have lower levels and a few more players.

If casual CWs are possible, we might be interested.

Great. I'll be in touch, Grim. Josef & I are about to start one

Yes Grimm we will be happy to get this war with u

Yes we look forward to it

My understanding is that it is currently not possible though We'll have to postpone a real casual CW until it is officially possible. In the meantime, the Basterds have a good base of casual players if you want to play some regular games, that would be great.
What's the latest on this? (see discussion here)

When I hit the link on 'here' to see the discussion, it just shows me the beginning of this thread. :/ Odd. I'm unclear on what kind of permission we would need to have a casual CW. Any clan leader or officer should be able to start one. I'm assuming it would be treated with the same rules as a quick CW. Since world 24 hr games can last months, it should be considered to be a game from whatever season it ends in. I'm also assuming there will be no difference to the CW scoring. A CW is a CW, fast or slow. Really, nothing needs to be altered to have cas CWs.
In another thread it was brought up that CWs have to start as quick games. I'm not sure of this, but it could be a snag that will have to be smoothed out.

Yeah, I guess we should verify whether it is possible or not.
I fixed the link (now correctly points to discussion in the Questions forum).

We have 4 players available for casual ATM. We could play a 3v3 or 4v4. At your convenience.
We could start with a smaller map like EU+ or maybe Eurasia. Also, we should allow late joining (for replacement of players that might need to quit).

I hate the idea of a Casual CW.

No, I don't believe it would be better. It would again bring down the skill level of cln wars itself. If casual coalition wars were the new norm, I(or anyone else) could play all three accounts, or all on one side without worry. You don't even need more than 3 minutes to do your turns, and the "default" and new normal is now 4minutes, you have plenty of time to move.

Keep learning and catching up on how to play, because changing coalition wars to casual games is definitely worse for competition and the game itself.

So...are you saying CWs are reserved for high rank players? That I, as a mid-rank player, am dragging down the talent pool of CWs? If we get more rank 5 & 6s playing wouldn't that be a good thing? I think so. There is already a little interest in casual CWs & I hope it grows. Unless ordered by AW, I'm forging ahead with this. Sorry, but you'll just have to make a little room for us.

No, I'm definitely not discouraging coalition wars. I want more to happen, and any lower ranked players willing to play is a good thing.

However I'm talking about the route you take to gain skill. The learning process itself. It's the same with UN games, if you play those as you join the game instead of regular quick games, you end up a terrible player as soon as you step into a quick game. If people try to play casual coalition wars, and actively practice for those, these players will not be able to play a regular coalition war to any passable degree. I want the players interested in coalition wars on a path that will allow you to compete and even surpass the current top players. I want you to stand beside us and be able to beat us in the long run.

But you won't be able to with casual games.

Skrivet av Desu, 11.09.2013 at 14:34

However I'm talking about the route you take to gain skill. The learning process itself. It's the same with UN games, if you play those as you join the game instead of regular quick games, you end up a terrible player as soon as you step into a quick game. If people try to play casual coalition wars, and actively practice for those, these players will not be able to play a regular coalition war to any passable degree. I want the players interested in coalition wars on a path that will allow you to compete and even surpass the current top players. I want you to stand beside us and be able to beat us in the long run.

But you won't be able to with casual games.

Your argument suggests that quick games are the "be all end all" or the only "real" way to play. You're saying that since casual games don't improve your quick game skills, they are somehow a less valid way to play. I think casual games can be just as competitive as quick games. The only difference is that time is not a factor. You could even argue that since time is not a factor, casual is more strategic; you don't gain an advantage by being able to issue commands quickly.
Comparing casual and UN games is unfair. I take it UN games are competitive, but that they rely on "soft" skills like negotiation (I wouldn't know, I haven't tried them yet).
That said, the point you raised previously might be a problem: use of multiple accounts on a casual CW. There are ways to control against this though. Even in quick, it seems high ranks have alts in other clans that they use to CW with, which creates a similar problem.

Personally, I think we as players should be able to play both, quick trains your quick reaction to issues and speed clicking. Casual games provide a deeper insight on the strategy as the margin of error is significantly lower on a casual. You are able to develop planning, analyzing, and evaluating skills from the casuals which will benefit you in the quicks.

Quick ultimately tests your knowledge of the game

I play both and I think that in casual games, you can play the game more precisely. Sometimes, it can take me half an hour to make one turn, redoing my move in the perfect order, optimizing transportation, exploring tactics, etc. Then, when I play quick games, I have all this experience to get to win.
Quick games are fun in their own ways, but, my point is, that I learn more into casual ones and that they are fun too. I get more involved in it. I'm thinking about my moves while I'm on the bus or at work so I spend more time thinking about strategies.
People should play both. If you don't like casual games, I suggest that you try for real. World map is best played casual.

Skrivet av Autumn, 12.02.2014 at 08:56

I play both and I think that in casual games, you can play the game more precisely. Sometimes, it can take me half an hour to make one turn, redoing my move in the perfect order, optimizing transportation, exploring tactics, etc. Then, when I play quick games, I have all this experience to get to win.
Quick games are fun in their own ways, but, my point is, that I learn more into casual ones and that they are fun too. I get more involved in it. I'm thinking about my moves while I'm on the bus or at work so I spend more time thinking about strategies.
People should play both. If you don't like casual games, I suggest that you try for real. World map is best played casual.

I completely agree. I would add that you can often make mistakes in quick and get away with them. In casual, against a good player, mistakes will almost always cost you. Unfortunately, the same goes for glitches that seem to occur more frequently in casual...