Top 12

ignoble

Messenger
Mortis Umbra has dropped to #5
Molon Labe is new, replacing blue virus.

lots of alliances moving back and forth.
 

mflip234

Guest
Time for an update...

1. Mortis - We are obviously struggling... Remember Olympia kicked our butts, PR is kicking our butts. ADR is gonna beat us, Saxons are more organized then us and have won crowns before... TRV and Molon Labe lead by Agent Mouth (oops Mango) are gonna destroy us cause we are efficient enough. I mean it took 3 cs's to take 2 of his cities... Then the world wakes up from dreamland... My CHALLENGE... BRING IT ON...

2. Saxons - Musketeers are gone, pr is getting hammered, Saxons def are number 2 in this world. Doing very well.

3. MU - MN's academy. Is it sad that the acad has more bp, more pts then all the other alliances on this world...

4. ADR - Supposedly having a gameplan to beat us... We will see. Rall and Flrg running to vm doesnt help their cause.

5. PR - Hanging around, losing a few cities...

6. Olympia - Another alliance in the coalition, might take a city here and there, but loses more then they take. Does seem to have a little more of a plan then the others.

7. Ef - Another alliance - they dont want to fight anyone... But taking in Boboes and Delo might be the end of them... Do they ever not run and hide. Honestly Delo might be one of the most cowardly players in game I have met.

8. TRV - I think they are all but done... Stick a fork in them.

9. Molon Labe - Besides Mango talking, not a whole lot of action...

10. Redwood Empire - Are they going to ever fight? Tuffs used a lot of gold to grow, but at what point are they gonna do something other then pact with everyone... Might be merging with Saxons.

11. Ur-Ronin - picking up the leftover Musketeers, lets see how long they last...

12. God Of War - Gamal and the rest... Supposedly merging with saxons to come beat up on MN.
 

Aeraamis

Guest
Come on now mflip234, try not to be such a homer. If you're a player with any experience, you know that coalitions very rarely ever work. How else is an alliance to see if this one would function as intended, than to check it out, right?

You say we lose more than we take. The difference between our two alliances is that we don't pad our numbers by taking inactive players. When we run an operation against an alliance, we don't nibble on the edges, targeting someone who isn't able to fight back. No, we take on active players that offer a fight. I am sure you remember that actually taking on another active player is the fun part of the game.

You couldn't even take a city that one of members had taken just hours before. I will give you an "A" for effort though. I am still plowing through all the BP's I gained from that and I suppose I should thank you. So in summary, your alliance's ability to take a city from one of our active players is, well....... Let's just say if this were baseball, all you've been able to do is swing and miss.

Next time you make a top 12, you might try an objective, maybe even remotely truthful, summary.

***Disclaimer****
By using the the term "Homer", I am not referring to anything homosexual. Rather it is a slang term defined in the Urbandictionary as

"A blind chauvinist that displays uncritical loyalty and enthusiasm towards a team, organization, leader, band, institution, etc in spite of their obvious faults and shortcomings. Usually belligerent to criticism no matter how constructive or benign it is to their entity they blindly and uncritically support."

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Homer&page=2
 

DrRoboto

Newcomer
I agree with Aeraamis. Be a bit objective here.

Since May 1 MN has taken 3 cities from Olympia, MU has taken 2. Lump them together since they are the same all-in-all so 5 cities taken from Olympia (outside of our core oceans I might add).

Since May 1, Olympia has taken 4 cities from MU, granted it is not MN, but that is still a pretty even score.

Our MN numbers will be coming up in the future, but for most part your cities have been a bit far for us.
 

mflip234

Guest
LOL You guys took some smokeiskillin me cities that he basically gifted to you guys on the 75 border... You guys took a little inactive city... Lets face it, Olympia is leading the coalition and you guys are far from us. Look at the rest of your allies. PHX doesnt look so hot, neither does TRV, Adr is getting smoked.. Dont worry your time is coming... The op on harv netted you no cities from him. U wont be taking MN cities anytime soon, or probably ever...
 

Aeraamis

Guest
Naw man, don't kid yourself. We didn't really make an effort to take on Harv, if so we wouldn't have done it on a holiday weekend. We had some guys needed some Bp's, so why not? Organized? No. Just a little get together to have a bit of a party for the 4th. But, you did show us something. We now know the timing of your defense and it's content, oops.

You can't have it both ways. You discount the smokin cities we took because of their location, yet boast the cities we didn't take in the same location. Had we been serious and ran a real op, they would have fallen and you know it.
 

StHo

Guest
I usually just lurk a bit on externals and rarely if ever post, but I must say, the unjustified hubris coming from Olympia is pretty entertaining.

Let's all stop puffing our chests out and pretending that we are better than we are and look at just the facts for a minute.

1) Olympia has had the advantage of growing to the alliance they are currently due to geographic location out in the east. You guys have been an ocean or more away from the wars that have been going on in Zakros since the beginning. That is changing. As MN continues to grow and press outward, we are moving more into 65 and some into 64. You guys are are also helping our cause by taking cities/ghosts that are much closer to us, so now we can actually reach you at good morale without having a 13+ hour tt.

2) Olympia is unproven. 613k ABP and 382k DBP as an alliance tells me you haven't been attacked much and you haven't attacked much. To put that in perspective, the top 5 attackers in Mortis have more ABP and the top 7 defenders have more DBP than your entire alliance. We've been in the trenches since the start. We've heard the same rhetoric that you guys are posting here from several other alliances, all of which are shells of what they were when the respective wars started if they are even still around.


So please, spare us the spin jobs of how you guys "didn't really try to op us back on the 4th" or "now we know what your defensive make up is". It's the same for any grepo player that knows how to play. It's not rocket science and it's not a secret. However, you guys are gradually biting off more than you can chew and I, for one, am really looking forward to the point when we can actually start the real war instead this forum war. Just do me one favor. When it hits the fan in 64 and you guys realize the inevitable outcome of your war with us, don't ask to join us.
 

Aeraamis

Guest
Yep, you're right. We are whatever you say we are, if we weren't then why would I say we are.
 

Athanasios

Hoplite
Naw man, don't kid yourself. We didn't really make an effort to take on Harv, if so we wouldn't have done it on a holiday weekend. We had some guys needed some Bp's, so why not? Organized? No. Just a little get together to have a bit of a party for the 4th. But, you did show us something. We now know the timing of your defense and it's content, oops.

You can't have it both ways. You discount the smokin cities we took because of their location, yet boast the cities we didn't take in the same location. Had we been serious and ran a real op, they would have fallen and you know it.
Sounds to me like you all are a bit disorganized.

We had some guys needed some Bp's, so why not?
Um, because you fed the top alliance EVEN MORE BP which furthered they're growth rate over yours. It doesn't take a long time grepo-veteran to understand this concept (though I may be) but you aren't making your alliance look good by saying things like this. Clearly, MN/MU have played the game well thus far, which is a statistic based fact. At most, they have had 1 PACT, and 1 OBA at any given time. can you say the same about your alliance?

Just like war (which they are beating you at), diplomacy is also part of this game (which they are also beating you at).
 

Rhizome9

Guest
My CHALLENGE... BRING IT ON...
It must be easy to say "Bring it on" when your alliance is more than 3 times the size of Saxons, with 3 times as many LS and birs! MN have done well by taking off early and have dominated this world ever since. And everyone knows that the Saxons started months later.

I guess that I'm just pointing out that its more of a Goliath and David kind of fight.
 

Aeraamis

Guest
I find it rather odd that you would chime in at such a late hour Athanasios, I guess it took a week for you to catch up. You may not have noticed, but I answered all your questions and commented on your comments with my last post, I considered this settled. Perhaps the post was a little too complex, I suppose maybe I should translate for you....

Yep, you're right. We are whatever you say we are, if we weren't then why would I say we are.
This means that your perception has nothing to do with reality.
This means that you should not believe everything you think.
This means you are going to see what you want to see.
This means that it does not matter what you or I say, nothing will change.
This means that anything you say is nothing but conjecture and has no relationship with the truth.

But I do have one comment I just can't pass up....

Really? Don't attack the number one alliance because we might feed them BP's... News flash genius, anytime you attack a player/alliance you'll give and receive BP's. I would have thought an experienced player like you would have figured out this most basic mechanism of the game by now. Oh, wait that's right, you don't give BP's when you only attack inactive players......

You know this all started because we asked for an "Unbiased" top 12. But y'all got all bent out of shape about it. After raising 6 children, I know more often than not, people will grossly overreact when trying to deny the truth. Just sayin.

I'm out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Athanasios

Hoplite
We didn't really make an effort to take on Harv, if so we wouldn't have done it on a holiday weekend. We had some guys needed some Bp's, so why not? Organized? No.
is not the same as....

Really? Don't attack the number one alliance because we might feed them BP's... News flash genius, anytime you attack a player/alliance you'll give and receive BP's. I would have thought an experienced player like you would have figured out this most basic mechanism of the game by now. Oh, wait that's right, you don't give BP's when you only attack inactive players......

Yet again, scoring noob points for your alliance....
I didn't say NOT to attack the number one alliance. I said your comment about throwing unorganized attacks at them was a bad move and replied to your "Why Not?" with a "Because you're feeding them BP." Genius concept isn't it?

Also, any experienced player knows that if you don't eat your inactive players, someone else will. How is that even a comeback!?!? Does any other grepolis player EVER say eating your own inactive cities is bad??? MN holds the number 1 attackers rank and MU (though barely) holds the number 2. Do you really think that happened by only attacking inactive players?

To be clear, I wasn't talking about your alliance, or the others that have commented on this thread. I wasn't talking about the top 12 even, which I know makes it a bit off topic. I was talking about YOU specifically for saying something that makes your alliance look bad. If you're going to speak on the externals, it represents your alliance. You should definitely reconsider doing so in the future. Unless you enjoy making the rest of the server laugh at your poor understanding of this games mechanics and strategies.

Yes, I started late. I actually had no intention of staying here full time either. That may change now, though.
 

Skrewball11

Peltast
Ya, you have to eat your inactives. Anyone that says otherwise is not really understanding the game to its full extent. However, size does not mean much either. Some of the largest alliances have poor communication, too many inactives (so many they cant keep up which has been the problem with the EN servers due to MRA alliances where they have 4,5,6 + academies), more simmers, etc etc.

But remember WW is about resources and efficiency. In Sparta we won WW in less then 10 days. We were about half the size of the larger alliance. Some alliances get so large and are so spread out and have so many inactives in between that they have long travel times to WW. Or again, because of size and so many academies they have poor communication.

But we all have different strategies, and ways of looking at this game. It makes it fun. Also, realize that alliances break up all the time. I am a firm believer that a world has about 3-5 shake ups. Shake ups meaning the top 3 alliances break up and/or merge with another. Rember this world is young and will take some time. I expect only 1/3 of the players to be here in 6 months. It is very possible we will have a shake up in the next couple of months. We will definetly have one in Oct/Nov. Always have a major shakeup come the holidays.
 

Totally not RT

Guest
Ya, you have to eat your inactives. Anyone that says otherwise is not really understanding the game to its full extent. However, size does not mean much either. Some of the largest alliances have poor communication, too many inactives (so many they cant keep up which has been the problem with the EN servers due to MRA alliances where they have 4,5,6 + academies), more simmers, etc etc.

But remember WW is about resources and efficiency. In Sparta we won WW in less then 10 days. We were about half the size of the larger alliance. Some alliances get so large and are so spread out and have so many inactives in between that they have long travel times to WW. Or again, because of size and so many academies they have poor communication.

But we all have different strategies, and ways of looking at this game. It makes it fun. Also, realize that alliances break up all the time. I am a firm believer that a world has about 3-5 shake ups. Shake ups meaning the top 3 alliances break up and/or merge with another. Rember this world is young and will take some time. I expect only 1/3 of the players to be here in 6 months. It is very possible we will have a shake up in the next couple of months. We will definetly have one in Oct/Nov. Always have a major shakeup come the holidays.
Perfectly put.
 

Versingetorix

Newcomer
My first forum post here in Zakros! While I have an obvious bias, I promise to be as objective as possible. Those of you who know me know how I love to mix it up in a debate.

1. The Saxons - Making a real run at winning the world. Despite being hamstrung by a late entry, smart play and positioning have brought them to be a leading contender. Their enemies have even dubbed their territorial ocean lines as the iron curtain or similar such names. Still, at a quarter the size of Morty, will they close the gap? They are certainly winning on the head to head scorecard of city conquests, but the scorecard is still short.

2. Mortis Nuntius - Quickly becoming the laughing stock of Zakros. Don't get me wrong, on the surface they still appear to be in the driver's seat, but how many advantages does one need to win? They remind us of the man that's so scared he can't satisfy his wife any longer he becomes addicted to the little blue pills to make up for his handicap. Using gold like they pop Viagra, they are committed to winning at all cost. Inno kids need college funds too! Despite the snickering from all the other major alliances, most are still scared to be in the cross hairs of an alliance that's stretched itself from rim to rim. Still, reliance on mass gold spending and spell wars in place of conventional warfare are signs of a lack of confidence in strategic and op planning competency. It leaves the world wondering how they would compete otherwise.

3. Phoenix Rising - Making a rebound. A few months back they really got hammered by Saxons and Morty at the same time. Now they have stabilized but are they still shell shocked? They may have cold feet at the thought of launching a major offensive again, but will the killers of the group stay active if they don't jump back in the fray?

4. ADR - Another Iron Curtain? Their fighting stats look great, but are heavily leaning toward defensive bp. An alliance doesn't advance well on it's goals toward winning when it's backpedaling on the battle field.

5. Mortis Umbra - Morty's baby sister. They have great stats. The only problem is most of the players that made those battle points were called up to the major league at mother Morty. Most of what's left are the dregs like ex-musketeers that are either simmers or don't know how to fight. Sink or swim. Or rather, fight or be internalized. It's been a winning strategy that keeps mother Morty at an active 150 membership while providing a pool of weak players to self conquer. Let the buyer beware. If you get invited to join, take a look in the mirror and consider if there is an alternative reason why Morty allows you to eat at the kiddie table this Thanksgiving. As we say in the mafia, if you haven't spotted the target after sitting for 5 minutes, you're it!
 

LDGRIM

Newcomer
I agree 110% versingetorix on this post. They drop gold like its nobodies business. I know how great the Mortis leader(Mflop) is though because he says so in a post on these external forums somewhere and he told me so himself. pfft.... I haven't seen it myself.