Defeat due to Time Running Out During Alliance War

Today I fought through several aid resets (not sure of exact number but ridiculous # none the less). I lost to time not the strength of the opponent and received zero points for the effort. Either eliminate the aid (should be mano a mano) ; or the challenger should be given the victory as the opponent did “NOT” properly defend his//her self in the allotted time., especially in light of continuous aid.

If you received 0, it was probably because your enemy healed themselves and at the end you didn’t damage them.

I thought that time running out shouldn’t be qualified as loss before, but I changed my mind. If you don’t win, then you’ve lost. If you attack Moscow in winter, you don’t win. Russians don’t have to kill you for you to lose. The moment you stop fighting, you’ve lost.

Raids are just like that. You attack your enemy, but you run out of provisions before you’ve defeated them. You lost. They defended themselves and won.

In war, you get points even if time runs out, I think. But just like with every war attack, you get points only for the damage you’ve done. If you don’t do any lasting damage, you don’t get any points.

Also, anything but loss from timeout would get exploited.


In raids, after a certain number of moves it goes into sudden death, with increased damage, I don’t see why this couldn’t also be applied to wars, which would resolve the battle more likely before time runs out.

1 Like

I think it’s because in raids it’s over when you’re done, so it makes sense to force the destruction of one team or the other. It is just one battle, not war.

In war, the rules are different. If you don’t defeat your opponent, they live to fight another day. You can’t force the destruction, because it wouldn’t be fair. The fact that it takes you too long to kill a defending team should be an advantage to that team. If you increase damage to everyone, then the defending team will take much more damage then they should. And then you’ll just return with another team and kill them like a fly.

Sudden death has no place in war. If I build a team good enough to survive, I shouldn’t pay for it by having it killed through divine intervention.

1 Like

The problem is that First Aid is more like major surgery than field aid. When there are more than 2 major surgeries in a battle, then it becomes “DIVINE INTERVENTION.” Also without this “Divine Intervention” the defending team really isn’t good enough to win — and therefore the attacker shouldn’t be a casualty.
The Russian analogy is not appropriate in this instance. The Germans retreated; in my battle, I had heroes fighting and capable of continuing the attack — I did not retreat.
I still believe there must be a limit to the number of times major surgery may be performed.


I was talking more about Napoleon’s provision wagons being destroyed before they could reach his troops. Just because you’re alive doesn’t mean you have ammunition or can repair broken swords or even have proper amount of food to sustain such a long fight.

The analogy doesn’t hold in the regard that this is not a siege but a field battle. However, even in a field battle you can defend your position long enough for your enemy to have to retreat. Maybe it’s as simple as not being able to fight in the dark.

To me it seems, though, like the war is two sieges at once - otherwise how do you explain that you have arrows to attack enemies when defending, but not when attacking?

I would explain the heals as bunch of healers helping from a distance. They’re hidden where the attacker can’t get to them. They magically close the wounds, it’s easier than a surgery.

Quite frankly, I don’t like any of the war effects. If it’s not a siege, then both sides should have the same rules, which apply in every fight and not just when they’re defending. I’m not going to defend Field Aid here. It’s a terrible effect and everyone knows it. The developers won’t remove it, though.

There’s a lot of things wrong about the war, but I don’t think timeout without sudden death is one of them.

1 Like

If your the attacker and you failed to kill all your opponents then it only makes sense that you lost the battle.
As real life battles was used as an example, if you attack a forte and you retreat or stop fighting then your opponents forte is still standing thus you lost the battle.

Having field aid or not won’t change that thus having no baring on the outcome in this scenario.


If it makes you feel any better, at least you’re not the only player having trouble with Field Aid:

Regarding your second suggestion (attacker wins on timeout), this is way too easy to abuse. One could start a battle, literally sit there for 10 minutes, and get the win.


Keep in mind it works both ways. You could win as a defender if someone attacks you and their time runs out.


I do agree my suggestion that the attacker wins on a timeout is NOT a very good idea for the very reasons you and others have stated. Even as a defender, I would be willing to limit the number of times Field Aid should be given. I still believe Field Aid as currently being given multiple times mitigates the time, cost, and strategy in building a powerful team.

1 Like

Honestly I think the defenders should receive points if they win due to timing out. That’s a good defence and should be rewarded


No it shouldn’t. Read the comments above.

I think if a battle in war times out, both sides should recieve points based on damage. Nobody should be declared victorious.

Cookie Settings