Armies once took pride in inventing clever strategies to outwit their opponents in battle. However, the narrative has shifted. Creative tactics have given way to a reliance on repetitive algorithms. With the current battle system, an AI could lead events just as effectively as army leaders.
Designed by MasterDS
Preface
Over the past two decades, Club Penguin Armies have navigated countless changes, from administrative overhauls to world wars and tournaments. While recent efforts have focused on revitalizing the league map and promoting more political warfare, the core problem remains: the battle system is inherently boring.
Color Wars Era (2006-2009)
The first instances of battles ever occurring on Club Penguin were established by throwing snowballs at the “enemy”, which were usually friends playing around in groups such as Red, Green, and Blue. The earliest example of these battles occurring was in World War I. There was no level of organization or announcements, or clear definition of what made a battle. It would usually simply be decided by who has more penguins online, and who threw snowballs the most.
Understandably, this may seem dull to most of you today, but this was the infancy of Club Penguin warfare. This raw, unorganized chaos was the spark. It gave birth to the very idea of competition within a game designed for socializing and play, laying the foundation for the organized, tactical battles that would define the community for years to come.
Color Wars during World War 1
Developing Tactics (2010 – 2017)
As warfare grew more complex, so did battle strategies. The focus shifted to acquiring and invading servers, turning wars into a fight for land. This marked a major turning point, as armies began to invade enemy servers by overwhelming them. A successful invasion was defined by the invading army marching through every room and claiming it as your own, while the defending army fought to do the same and reclaim their territory.
Doritos vs. Night Warriors
This is when a level of organization began to appear within the army community. Armies introduced formations into battles, and the first forms of judging were evident, with Club Penguin Armies Central declaring victors for battle rooms. All in all, this sudden development within tactical norms and judging standards shaped what the community would be for the coming years.
CPPS Era (2017-2021)
The ongoing Club Penguin Private Server era has fundamentally changed army warfare. Judging has become mainstream, pushing armies to improve their battle skills year after year. Now, the hallmarks of a great army were speed, formation choices, and creative tactics. Although activity was at an all time low after the original Club Penguin shut down, we continued ideating and refining our battle process to add another layer of organization.
Legends Cup in 2018
Modern Warfare
Although developing how we conflict seemed good at first, we’ve reached a turning point, to where battles are too organized. The surplus of rules and regulations left no room for what once defined club penguin warfare, creativity.
The current battle system has evolved into a repetitive, predictable routine that has drained much of the strategic depth and creativity from Club Penguin Army warfare. Each battle unfolds in three rooms, with armies given exactly ten minutes to compete in each. This standardized structure has turned battles into a methodical, almost formulaic process.
Within this fixed format, the core objective is to execute a series of pre-planned tactics as efficiently as possible. Thus, for the past few years, almost all battles have went exactly as so:
- Armies enter a room and get into a formation
- Armies spam already prepared word tactics and emotes
- Armies send a BWB and bomb every 3 minutes, to make a new formation
- A new room is announced, and the process repeats.
EVEN ai COULD lead
With this monotony, a robot calling tactics at a set speed and routinely moving forms with bombs isn’t far-fetched at all. In fact, it seems like the logical endpoint of a system designed to be a simple, repeatable algorithm. A bot could easily be programmed to enter a room, perfectly execute a formation, and spam pre-written tactics at a flawless pace. It could deploy bombs with pinpoint timing and move to the next room without the hesitation of a human leader. All of the key elements required to “win” a modern battle—speed, repetition, and following a set routine—are exactly what a machine excels at. The human leader’s role, once one of strategic ingenuity and quick thinking, has been reduced to nothing more than a script. The most armies will do today, in the name of creativity, is create new forms to suit their size.
Aliens making what appears to be a vertical with 3 intersecting horizontals
What are we missing?
Tactic Creativity
Creativity. As I mentioned earlier, today’s battles feel more formulaic than ever. Club Penguin Army Judges have systematically eliminated creative tactics, in favor of just making formations and routinely switching. This emphasis on a rigid structure has stripped away our ability to make our own choices and innovate on the battlefield. As Coolguy mentioned in a post two years ago, we battle to please the judges, not to outperform our opponents.
In 2014, Boomer20 released a post for Club Penguin Army Central about some old tactics. Today, the post’s content is considered extraordinary because it outlines strategies and tactics that have completely vanished from the modern battlefield.
The Counterstrike tactic
The counterstrike tactic shows creativity and originality, allowing an army to circle around the room, in groups before merging back into the original form and reclaiming the chat bar. This may seem complex, however, it would take the enemy by surprise, leaving them in suspense about what you’d do next.
This tactic demands a level of training and strategic effort from both leaders and troops that is completely absent in modern warfare. It requires leaders to think on the fly and read the battlefield, adapting to the enemy’s movements. For the troops, it means more than just spamming. It demands discipline, coordination, and the ability to execute a complex, multi-stage maneuver. In contrast, today’s battles feel like a timed exercise, lacking the strategic depth and genuine surprise that tactics like the counterstrike once offered. With this said, I highly doubt any armies today could understand these tactics, let alone execute them in battle.
An Engaging Battle System
Furthermore, claiming servers used to include armies charging into rooms and claiming them, while the defending army tried to keep up and defend their territory. While these battles were still performance-based and judged room-by-room, they captured the thrill of claiming territory. Today, however, the strict 10-minute-per-room system has turned invasions into a tedious chore, completely stripping them of their original excitement.
The point is, creativity has died in armies. The “battle” system fails to provide the feel of a true battle or invasion, turning a contest of wits into a mindless routine. Leading has become less about on-the-spot thinking and more about following a pre-defined algorithm. However, this very system has worked for us for the past two years, and CPAJ has provided almost consistently trustworthy results.
This very stability is the problem. We have grown so accustomed to a predictable and reliable path to success and that the thought of deviating from it is now difficult.
Subjective standard
With the current battle system, once again, armies don’t fight to outperform their opponent, but rather win a grade from their judges. Any deviation from the established script—any attempt at a truly innovative or unpredictable move—risks the judges disliking the tactic and ruling against them. Armies are now afraid to experiment, knowing that a single non-standard tactic could cost them a victory. This has created a self-fulfilling prophecy of monotony, leading to the repetitive battles.
When this continues, and no new tactics are created, the arsenal of tactics at hand for an army leader grow ever more limited with time.
What led to certain tactics being normalized as bad? I would say that its because at the end of the day, judging is subjective. People subjectively decide if an army is more creative. They subjectively decide if an army stays in a formation too long. Its subjective if an army is not doing tactics fast enough. It’s the judges opinion whether they like a certain tactic or not. And when its mentioned once that someone dislikes a tactic, others often tend to follow pursuit, sending that tactic out of fashion. Some argue that the judging guidelines bring consistency to judging and ensures fair results. However, at the end of the day, the judging guideline itself is also subjective.
Undeniably, some aspects of judging can be objectively measured. This includes AFKs, troop count, and even which army is covering more. However, aspects such as the beforementioned tactic creativity cannot, and thus the core of judging is essentially subjective.
FEAR OF innovation
From the perspective of an army leader, the current system presents a harsh reality. Their primary goal is to win battles and keep their army competitive. When the path to victory is a clearly defined, repeatable algorithm, it becomes the only logical strategy. The focus shifts from “how do we make better tactics?” to “how can we impress the judges”
This mindset has been drilled into the community’s newer generations. They’ve grown up in an era where the formulaic approach is the only one that guarantees a win in the eyes of the judges. For them, the algorithm is simply how things are done. This creates a cycle where innovation is risky, and often seen as not worth the struggle.
Cycle of stagnation
How the subjective standard and fear of innovation come together, stagnating innovation within battles. Armies aren’t fighting to create something new; they’re fighting to avoid mistakes that could cost them the win. This self-preservation instinct gives way to a cycle born from a system of subjective standards. This ultimately kills innovation and leaves battles feeling repetitive and lacking new elements.
- An army attempts a complex or innovative tactic.
- CPAJ provides negative feedback for the tactic, often because it was confusing or executed poorly.
- Other armies, seeing the negative feedback, are no longer inclined to try the same tactic or develop their own.
- Tactics that are repeatedly executed poorly, or are simply disliked by judges (such as wipes), become scorned.
- The use of these tactics steadily declines as armies try to win favor with the judges and secure more victories.
- As old tactics go out of fashion and no new ones are created, the arsenal of available strategies shrinks, and the cycle repeats.
CROSSROADS
The rigid, three-room format gives armies no freedom, completely undermining the historical concept of a battle where armies fought to capture territory. In no world is a monotonous, thirty-minute exercise using an algorithm enjoyable, both for leaders and the army population.
We now stand at a crossroads with two paths before us.
- The first is to move forward and stick with our current battle system and norms. This path offers stability. It’s what’s worked for the past few years, even if creativity is limited and innovation is minimal. However, if we truly want to give way to the Golden Age of CPA, change is necessary.
- The second would be to go backward. Instead of having such rigid battle requirements, start allowing the armies to express their freedom of creativity again. Lift restrictions and give way to a new (or old) battle system which allows for more strategy. Armies were founded based on children’s creativity, so why shouldn’t we bring that back?
The reason I prefaced this article with the evolution of battles was to bring to light how in past generations, battles were never so as repetitive and straightforward as they are today. Each new era introduced more rules, regulations, and structure, all in an effort to bring another level of organization to penguin warfare. However, we’ve reached a turning point. We’ve over-developed the system to the point that all the rules, regulations have left no room for creativity.
What next
Changing the system is a monumental task that requires a unified effort. This isn’t something armies can fix on their own; it demands cooperation from both the Club Penguin Armies administration and CPAJ. While the current focus is heavily on the drama of penguin politics and revitalizing the map, with the ongoing Mapping the Map Summit, the very core of penguin warfare is dying The algorithm-driven, formulaic battles have turned what should be the most exciting part of army life into a tedious chore. We can have all the political intrigue in the world, but if the actual fighting is devoid of strategy and creativity, then the entire foundation of our community is built on sand.
This post isn’t an attempt to call out CPAJ or army leaders, but rather a call to action and change. At the end of the day, we’re all playing the same penguin game, and what we do is in the best interest of the army community. Do you think the current battle system boring? What changes would you like to see?
xdemon
Reporter
More Information
no autographs sorry