From simple formations to high-speed and highly strategic battles, Club Penguin Armies have undergone a dramatic transformation. As judging standards, community innovations, and game changes have evolved, so too have the tactics employed by armies. In this article, we’ll dive into how these strategies have developed over time.
Designed by Koloway
Early Eras of Tactics
In the early eras of Club Penguin Armies, tactics were incredibly simple. Armies relied heavily on spamming basic tactics—mainly big word bubbles—to make their size appear larger. The idea was that if the screen was filled with word bubbles, it would overwhelm the opposing side visually.
Forms were also minimal, usually limited to circles, L formations, and a few other basic shapes. There was little emphasis on creativity or complexity. Battles were more about showing up, spamming faster, and outlasting your opponent rather than thinking tactically. Innovation was rare, and most armies just mirrored each other in style.
A Roman Fire Warriors event in 2011
Transition Periods
The real shift in tactics and the way armies approached battles began during the COVID era. With most people staying at home and more time to engage in online communities, CPA saw a rise in activity. New CPPSes emerged, most notably Club Penguin Army Battleground, which was specifically built for CPA warfare. Along with the rise of CPAB came structural changes in the community itself.
In 2022, two important institutions were born: Club Penguin Army Judges and the modern Club Penguin Armies league. These brought a more organized, professional layer to the game, especially on the judging side. Judges began applying clear standards to battles, and this forced armies to rethink how they approached tactics. Spamming tactics like BWB started to phase out. Armies began investing time into crafting creative forms, synchronized word tactics, themed movements, and sharper execution. With more emphasis on what the judges valued, the entire community’s approach to warfare began to shift as tactics evolved from chaotic spamming to refined, strategic planning.
CPA WARFARE TODAY
Today’s CPA battles look nothing like the early eras of spamming and simple formations. Over the past few years, the community has entered a new age—one where polish, speed, and creativity are no longer optional but essential. Armies that want to win battles can no longer rely on looking big or flooding the screen with random tactics. Every move is now under a microscope.
Judges now analyze modern-day tactics with precision. Formations must serve a purpose—whether that’s covering the opponent, displaying clear troop control, or holding a strong position in the room. Reusing the same form repeatedly, especially within the same room, is no longer acceptable. Judges look for sharpness and intent, not just troop mass. Speed has also taken center stage. It is not just about moving fast—it is about doing so in sync. Quick bombs, rapid formations, and smooth transitions all play a role in who takes the room.
A recently judged battle’s summary, fully explaining the judge’s point of view
Tactic execution has also become more demanding. Judges expect armies to complete each tactic fully, without awkward gaps or delays. Judges view half-done tactics as incomplete and penalize the army’s performance as a result. Meanwhile, creativity now carries more weight than ever before. Judges reward innovation, themed ideas, and split or flicker tactics that add flair to a battle. Repetition—whether it is reusing an old tactic or overdoing the same symbols like “@@@” can significantly hurt an army’s creativity score.
Big Word Bubbles, once the dominant meta, have taken a step back. Armies still use them—but only when they serve a real purpose, like covering the opponent or setting up a form. Judges now view the overuse or repetition of the same phrases as lazy and ineffective. The battle meta has evolved beyond brute force. It is now about finesse, originality, and strategy. Judges no longer base results on hype. Today’s tactical game rewards structure, creativity, and competition more than ever before.
Judge Perspective: Evolving Standards
Today’s CPA judging follows a fully developed system with clear expectations and consistent standards. CPAJ’s creation introduced a new level of professionalism to battle reviews. Judges now evaluate armies across five main factors: speed, tactical dominance, creativity, formations, and completion. Judges track these metrics room by room and determine the winner based on each side’s performance, not on overall impression.
CPAJ Head Judges announcing a detailed analysis during a review requested
One of the biggest judging changes lies in how judges interpret size—it still matters, but no longer guarantees a win. While troop size is still noted and matters, it no longer guarantees a win. A 1-5 troop advantage might have zero effect if the smaller army performs better. Only once the difference becomes substantial, typically 11+, does it start tipping the scale, and even then, it only helps if the larger army actually uses its numbers well. In conclusion, being bigger is not enough.
Execution matters just as much as size. Judges now pay close attention to how armies use their troops: are their formations clean and defined? Are their tactics complete and synced? A larger army that fails to coordinate can still lose to a smaller but more disciplined one. The same applies to variety. Armies that repeat the same tactic, formation, or word bubble are marked down. Repetition signals a lack of planning and weakens a battle’s creative edge.
With these updated expectations, CPAJ has transformed how battles or even normal events transpire into a more professional field, working towards the evolution of the art of battle. No longer can a battle be won by pure chaos or troop spam, and armies aim in each event to work towards their battle skills. The current judging system rewards armies that think critically, plan ahead, and bring something new to the battlefield. Strategy, not spam, now defines the outcome of a war.
Recent Rebel Penguin Federation event
Club Penguin Armies reached out to Spotty, Yvng, Jojoteri, & Shpec for an exclusive interview to learn more about how CPA strategies have changed over time
From a judging standpoint, what are the biggest tactical changes you’ve observed in CPA battles over the years?
Spotty: Probably big word bubbles but honestly I don’t view that as a good thing. Armies have become less creative and a lot of them instead rely on bwbs which can be viewed as unimaginative and lazy in a battle if used a lot.
Jojoteri: Over the years BWBs have improved with special character spam being more rare now. Also there are now more creative forms than for example in 2022. An example of that is the Y/uY forms that have become more popular lately. Triangle forms and As and angle forms are more popular too than they used to be. At times there have been forms like H, W, or diamond form(V and uV combined) which can be interesting. I feel that Bombs have changed too with armies doing less bunching wipes (bunching to a place then moving to another one doing a bwb and repeating that to different places before doing a form) which I feel is an improvement. There have also been some emoji bombs lately which work well at times.
Yvng: I been judging since October 2020 and from then up until now there hasn’t been too many changes from what I have seen. The main change I would say would be creativity over the years as armies have gotten more creative with their forms and tactics especially the comebacks, those are always fun to see. The only thing I hated that became a tactical change was the “@ bomb” pandemic where armies were abusing that since it maxed out the size of the word bubble, every bomb would be that. But yeah other than that it’s been mostly the same
Shpec: I haven’t been in armies that long, so I haven’t seen too much change. The overall reduction in size for most armies since covid has made battles more streamlined and understandable i think – you can still see the mess that happens when we have tournament finals with 70+ on each side. Other than that there’s not really been many changes in my time.
How have armies adapted their strategies in response to changes in Club Penguin’s mechanics or judging criteria?
Spotty: I’d say probably all, a lot of leaders become judges so they can understand the judging guidelines better. Some armies do less bwbs, and some have stopped doing wipes based on previous comments in summaries. Armies tend to read summaries they are given and adapt any feedback into their next battles. We’ve also had some people return to the community recently and it’s highlighted just how much judging has changed in recent years as they have been vocal at having to relearn everything, so I’d say most armies seem to be adapting.
Jojoteri: Club penguin mechanics have stayed mostly the same in CPAB, the judging criteria have helped armies have become more creative in forms and use more effort in BWBs and tactics (by not repeating the same ones).
Yvng: I would say there has been slight adaptation over time with the way armies adapt their strategies. Mainly size used to be a majority of it where the bigger army by a good margin would almost auto win and nowadays it is more of a mix of things. Size still matters ofc but not as much like in the past. Like I said earlier armies have gotten more creative to score those creativity points with their forms tactics and overall their speed. Also more variety in tactics too in terms of bwbs, phrases, and emotes since a good variety is heavily judged as well vs in the past. Now in terms of the game mechanics I have also seen armies do a tactic to exploit the game where if they come into the room later, when sitting on top of the other army their tactics cover the person they are sitting on.
Shpec: It’s definitely become a lot more structured. And in having criteria, it makes it easier to determine winners and the flow of the battle. Although the rules and criteria of the orgs have their benefits in competition, ig the loss of more “fun” aspects and freestyling leaves a bit to be desired In terms of armies evolving, each army has things they’re better at, which they prefer to do, but sometimes the guidelines have forced armies to change up, like with the more creative forms.
In your opinion, which era of CPA had the most effective tactics, and why?
Spotty: God that’s hard, based on me being here since 2018, 2019-2020 battles were pretty interesting as battles didn’t really rely on bwbs (they didn’t properly become a thing till mid-end 2020). Armies relied more on different types of bombs and formations and we’re just generally more creative.
Jojoteri: The current era has the best tactics judging wise. There is no special character spam and no repetition. The @@@ spam could make BWBs appear larger but it was ugly. I feel some armies nowadays also avoid using BWBs as much as possible which is even better and more creative.
Yvng: Can’t speak for anything before 2020 since I wasn’t there for that, but from what i personally witnessed I would say this current era as tactics are more diverse nowadays and armies are not just spamming bwbs as much like they used too. Now you see more of a mix of a different things and can’t go wrong where one army says something about one army and the other army claps back responding to it
Shpec: I’ve only been here for the cpps period in armies, and things haven’t changed much since I joined cpa, so I won’t have anything great as an answer. In the middle we had a period filled with @ and # tactics, focused only on bwbs and covering which wasn’t too great. I think the best tactics are usually more personal and targeting the opponent.
What tactical innovations or trends do you think we’ll see in the future of CPA warfare?
Spotty: I hope to see the creation of more new formations and movements, that’s what makes a battle. Armies need to just host events and just practise new movements or formations to get troops used to those. I think we will eventually see less bwbs as judges continue to be vocal regarding those.
Jojoteri: About the battles I hope that there will be new interesting formations especially in battles with larger sizes where its easier to make more complex forms. About the warfare as a whole I hope that there will be a map that requires more planning and diplomacy than the basic plain maps, similarly to the blood bowl.
Yvng: With the way how it’s been similar these battles go for the last couple years now I don’t see much innovation or trends in the future of CPA warfare. I think it will always be based off of the judges especially the hjs in trying to cater towards them and knowing what they like and don’t like. Also the guidelines have changed throughout time as well and as that changes I think armies will make adjustments based off of them as well if needed
Shpec: Man that’s a tough one, the next step forward imo, is probably to make the battle more dynamic, maybe rapid form changes or something else.. but that all depends on the leaders and what they’re willing to experiment with
As tactics continue to evolve and CPA battles become increasingly refined, one thing remains clear: success now demands more than just size or speed. Armies must bring creativity, precision, and adaptability to the battlefield. While some miss the chaotic charm of past eras, others embrace this new age of strategy and structure. But with judging standards growing stricter and the pressure to innovate rising, will armies keep pushing boundaries—or slip back into repetition? And how do you think judging standards might evolve in the years ahead?
Hyper?
Reporter
More Information
Filed under:
Editorials & Opinion | Tagged:
Armies,
Club Penguin Armies,
Club Penguin Armies Battleground,
Club Penguin Armies Judges,
CP Armies,
CPA,
CPAB,
CPAJ,
CPAJ Head Judges,
Editorial,
Jojoteri,
Opinion,
Shpec,
Spotty,
Yvng
The content on this page was last updated on April 18th, 2025 (4:00 pm)
