Disciplinity, Is That Necessary for New Players, Especially in Small Alliances?

[No Angel]

Let's just take a break for a while from rebalance issues, shall we?
Just a simple share-thoughts post, raising from my personal case/experience.

I created an alliance, 2 months ago, almost reaching level 6 now. We have a lot of newbies, most of them are cooperative, want to listen and learn. Following most war and alliance protocols.
There are a few that always get in my nerve though
Nice people, bad attackers.
I'm about to sit them out next wars.
​Question is, should it be necessary to be a lot more strict or force disciplinary to beginners? Knowing that they have just started the game, and must be learning a few still. I usually treat gunpowder age and above more strict, cause they must have been playing for a while.
Honestly, I have no problem to cover all of their failures in wars, but I don't want it to last for long.
So, should there be more disciplinity applied to these fellas? If so, what's the best approach?

(I posted a thread about ''How Are We Supposed to Coach Alliance Members'' but it was already a while, so I thought it might be obsolete, here's another corresponding thread )

 

[Tsamu]

You can give iron and Classical a lot of leeway, as long as they are using their attacks, and you see continuous improvement, even if slow. By Medieval they should have a reliable attack method, and should be able to execute at least 50% of the time. Gunpowder is where the rubber hits the road. If they are not 5 starring consistently get rid of them. Also give them a deadline to research Banners for the extra attack time.

Also watch out for players who have advanced too fast and can't 5 star bases 1 age lower than themselves. If someone attacks a dubious target, ask them why they chose it. If they don't reply, kick them.

 

[No Angel]

Also watch out for players who have advanced too fast and can't 5 star bases 1 age lower than themselves

Most my team mate do the opposite way don't age rush, afraid to hit hard bases

There's also one problem that our #1 player, a lot higher level than me, but he is not reliable I'm the one who have to execute all the top 5 bases . Yet I need his stronger base in each war .
Above all, I think I can agree with all above you said Tsamu. Thanks.

 

[oddin]

Create a Line group. Have everyone get there and use Notes as a library of information.
Post WW attack plans there.
Make friendly battles on a daily basis. For every attack, tell them what they did wrong and how they can correct it.
Post your replays so that others can learn from you.

Those 4 things, made most of our alliance members A LOT better in attacking.

 

[No Angel]

Thanks wrathchild_78 , Yes we do have Line group .
I guess we're just old people, we don't chat outside alliance chat too much
And I agree, Friendly Challenges and Replays might help.

 

[sileepuppee]

Leadership recently switched over (To me) and we've been kicking more people out since than. It is just a game and nothing of it is personal. It's true that newer players get more slack because they're new. Unless they're just toxic people than they get to stay much longer. People who come in who have been playing a long time have less wiggle room but that's just because if your 200+ you should know how to play by now. War has made the game both fun and frustrating because of what some people do in war. You always want to give some people a chance and for us if we have bad attackers we have them hit lower bases. If they refuse or can't even get that done, we remove them from war just so they can practice more. If that doesn't work than we just leave them out of war entirely and kick if there's complaining. Generally speaking it was the same arguments back and forth regarding war. People want to be in war but they either aren't good at attacks or attack who they shouldn't, don't make use all their war attacks, or refuse to update war bases. When they are taken out they argue about why they are taken out. It's just better to kick at that point as you don't want to have that going on all the time and you really don't need the added stress. It doesn't matter how long someone has been there in the alliance.

 

[Blackthorn]

You have to balance perticipation with ability. We run a top down attack structure. I take enemy 1&2 next our #2 takes enemy 3&4 our #3 takes enemy 5&6 our #4 plays clean up or takes 7&8. By then we’re usaly down to early manageable baces and more than enough baces to go around. That dose not say that one of our guys can not swing for the fences if they want. We had one of our global guys 4 star a cw base 30+ levels above him last war got to say it’s a real boost when they pull that off.

To answer your question I do not tell our team who to attack. They know there abilities better than me. But I pull from war any one who does not take both attacks. If we get a guy who wants to war but is unreliability he usaly goes all by him self.

Blackthorn
USA wolfhounds alliance

 

[No Angel]

That was awesome to have GA player scoring on CWAs
I plan war attacks actually, tell them who hits who, but then ask if they have better choice then let them go for it if it makes sense.

We run a top down attack structure. I take enemy 1&2 next our #2 takes enemy 3&4 our #3 takes enemy 5&6 our #4 plays clean up or takes 7&8

Lol I should let our #1 guy atack rank 5&6 because he has weaker attacks than both my accounts at rank 2&3

Anyways, I also encourage people to go outside their borderline and attack higher targets, only if they have successfully used their first attack.

 

[No Angel]

Yeah I've been kicking many too, but since we are newly established, it doesn't feel bad cause no one is too long in the alliance lol.
I've been sitting out some friends also, luckily they don't ask much for my explanation that they have to practice.
I'm just concerned that newbies do grow, level and age wise, but they will probably not improve their attacks.
We'll see.

 

[oddin]

that is exactly our attack plan as well. Works well if the attackers are reliable and know how to..