War

DeletedUser

Guest
I don't know what speed 1 worlds you've played in....
But I remember in the worlds ive played in we NEVER count inactives. THat defeats the whole purpose of a tally, dosn't it. And since you're so experienced, please come over and show us what skilled players who've played in a 12 month war play like, since obviously you're the only one who's ever played a speed 1 world before. Actually, you're pretty close. I'll come to you ;)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
AngeloSG said:
I don't know what speed 1 worlds you've played in....
But I remember in the worlds ive played in we NEVER count inactives. THat defeats the whole purpose of a tally, dosn't it. And since you're so experienced, please come over and show us what skilled players who've played in a 12 month war play like, since obviously you're the only one who's ever played a speed 1 world before. Actually, you're pretty close. I'll come to you ;)
Click to expand...
Red rover red rover AngeloSG come on over!!!o.o
Inactives are your baggage and I am no damn bellhop. If you don't want it to count then boot them. Tripwires are so pro. This crew here have spent well over 90 days filling nothing but our own inactives in the midst of a 12+ month war on a speed one server, but that was not my point. I was just sayin' own it or don't but know someone else will if you will not. Hiding behind inactives is a tactic many might use to grow while others may have real attrition problems. Thus a city counts when the banner changes no matter what IMO.
P.S. I didnt mean anything personal by my comment but if you're
froggyjumo324234.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
I knew an alliance that played like you....The Forgotten Phoenix from en Delta. Kicking inactives and wasting cs and cp taking them suggests both vanity in caring about the score and having a defensive outlook. Don't know what happened to your guys, but usually the people that play like that get destroyed as they get pushed further and further. Sure inactives are baggage, but a score should count whos hurting more/pushing an alliance back, I fail to see how losing some inctives hurts an alliance in any way. And don't worry, ill come over. Brotherhoods on the way, so ill be coming in your direction anyway.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Look around man oceans are full of in actives. Are we gonna not count oceans now too?

While I do agree with your point about losing inactives it still makes my point none the less valid. Tactical advantages are real even if the players are not. You are correct in pointing out the real asset in this equation is the the human capital. Cities will fall and sometimes losing a city can be a good thing for a player, but we are counting conquests aren't we?

P.S. If you think we choose to do this for 3 months due to vanity I am not sure what I can say to convince you otherwise but again I was not trying to get personal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
of course we COULD count city counts purely on grepostats, im just saying it wouldn't be a valid reprersentation of how an alliance is faring during a war, and it also encourages vanity kickings. id rather go forward and take enemy cities, rather than cannibalizing our inactives. I can't speak for all alliances, but as for mine, we have very very few inactives, mostly just VM. It just so happens that 4 cities NaF has taken happen to be part of that small group. Personally, I wouldn't count the city I've taken from them either. Scores are meant to be repersentative of how an alliance is faring in a war, it only makes sense you would count the cities taken that actually hurt an alliance.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Look it is all too subjective and this is why counts need to be done purely on grepostats. Part of being in an alliance is being able to hold what you own, activity be damned. Another part is knowing how to hurt an alliance and not just take another city. However, ocean control is determined by the objective city count thus subjective counts to determine wars are nothing more than propaganda. Surely the devil is in the details but the bottom line needs to remain objective or soon we will all just be drinking each other's kool aid.

Know that I really have no dog in this fight & was merely making a point I thought was valid trying to participate. I do poke a bit of fun as is my nature but I really didn't mean anything by it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
[report]47b67c4cef6afc6e1b1d9f0c836f19ec[/report]
That is a super harpy right there....too good. THe skill is almost too much to handle.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
hes actually our new mascot.
So long as Cradius insists on keeping track of CS....
Two seiges broken in one day? Ouch.....
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
Taking a screenshot before and after of a player's wall will tell u easily what happens in a battle. Also, easy way to track conquers between warring alliances grepointel has that if you are registered. Inactives count for sure, would they not offer up a strategic city to an enemy? If your neighbor goes inactive and enemy pops into his city without u knowing thats for sure a point for their team as you should of been on top of your game to stop it.
 

DeletedUser10453

Guest
Brotherhood and NAF have a shared forum against us so why dont we combine the cities we have taken from brotherhood and NAF and keep that score for now on :) lol?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Since there hasn't been much activity on this thread anymore, I'll add some. The pact with NaF and The Brotherhood is no longer in effect as of now.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Wow NaF finally manning up...im impressed.
On a seperate note, Beserkers recently have decided they want to officially join in on the fun.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Beserkers are just going to get brushed aside like dust
Do they actually think they can deal damage xD?
 

DeletedUser9493

Guest
Cradius The Tactical said:
Since there hasn't been much activity on this thread anymore, I'll add some. The pact with NaF and The Brotherhood is no longer in effect as of now.
Click to expand...

Why don't you let the good people here, in on why there is no pact between the 2 now?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
NaF basically wanted to continue to eat The Blight of Oblivion, but the Brotherhood stated that we couldn't since they felt it was apart of their holdings, The Brotherhood apparantly told them to join up and when the deadline hit nothing happened so that's when NaF decided the pact couldn't work out
 

DeletedUser9493

Guest
Cradius The Tactical said:
NaF basically wanted to continue to eat The Blight of Oblivion, but the Brotherhood stated that we couldn't since they felt it was apart of their holdings, The Brotherhood apparantly told them to join up and when the deadline hit nothing happened so that's when NaF decided the pact couldn't work out
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but don't you mean that N&F told TBH that Blight had to merge with the brotherhood or it was war? I mean, I'm just trying to get the facts right.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Sorry, I wasn't so clear. We basically started to farm Blight of Oblivion, and then Brotherhood told us to stop, but in return we told them to merge to avoid any problems. The merge never happened so we broke the pact with the Brotherhood. No war has been called because NaF feels like it was just a small error that wasn't worth escalating to a full war. Although, I can see the Brotherhood eventually declaring war on NaF again to try to protect their allies(Blight)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
An update to what I originally posted:
The Brotherhood decided they want a war so I guess they'll get a war :mad:
Whoever predicted a 3 way war was right
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top