DeletedUser
Guest
Any of them? This is for after BP so people can get a layout of the world
DeletedUser
Guest
well we are not sure yet..
DeletedUser
Guest
DeletedUser
Guest
No wars until someone is conquered, or there is a legitimate attempt made.
DeletedUser575
Guest
I must disagree with this comment. Anytime there is a legitimate and focused attempt to attack one alliance it is a war. One of these two alliances or both are slowing down the gains and advancements of the other alliance through their attacks and this would most definitely constitute a war as the whole objective of a war is to retard the advancement of your enemies for your own gain.
DeletedUser
Guest
I agree with Touch the Snake on this matter. TI has marked TE read therefore I would say when you mark someone red, it says a Fued(war) has begun
DeletedUser
Guest
Perhaps I was a bit narrow with my statement, yes, constant well orchestrated attacks are something different. Though personally I'll be damned if I was ever kicked from an alliance for BP hunting or farming guys who are not red because the leaders wanted to avoid "war." Sometimes some enemies are beaten into submission to the point where you are no longer receiving the same sort of bp that you would unless you waited for them to have a chance to rebuild. Until they do, it makes more sense to hit other folks. A few love taps isn't a war, but an attempt proper to stunt growth is different.
But the fact of the matter is you said that the goal of war is to retard the advancement of your enemies for you own gain. That doesn't happen if you yourself aren't taking ground from them. Until then you are doing nothing more then throwing stones at each other and flexing a muscle.
But the fact of the matter is you said that the goal of war is to retard the advancement of your enemies for you own gain. That doesn't happen if you yourself aren't taking ground from them. Until then you are doing nothing more then throwing stones at each other and flexing a muscle.
DeletedUser575
Guest
If I farm a player and knock his walls down until he submits and quits, am I not gaining sufficient ground on him? If one or both of the alliances feel that they are focusing on the other, then I consider it a war no matter how it is that they get it done.
DeletedUser
Guest
Still on Snakes side, but interesting debate
DeletedUser
Guest
Indeed, causing players to quit is gaining ground. But like I said before, orchestrated attacks are different than a few stones being thrown at each other. If an alliance hits our guys a few times I don't see it as war. Just a few farmers looking to get a few lucky hits in. If it is constant, or we are bored an want more competition, then we will retaliate with colony ships. Then the war begins.
I get where you are coming from though, snake, and I can respect that. But to me a few love tops and an orchestrated alliance effort are two different things. Can wars start at this stage without conquest? Sure, if it is orchestrated. But it is not a real war until some real blood is drawn.
DeletedUser
Guest
This is a very tricky subject, actually, as my own views on what constitutes a war actually conflict with each other. If we are farming a player not of an alliance, we don't usually consider ourselves at war with the player. It's a matter of they are there, they have resources and we are going to take those resources to further our own growth. They are a farm and that is that. Now, the victim is going to think differently on this simply because they are the one being attacked (and thus why we always get those lovely little messages in our Inbox), but as they aren't within an alliance well, most likely they are going to either quit in a rage or they'll learn to dodge and spend down their resources in order to make themselves less of a target. Or, they'll become my biggest pet peeve after a spy in an alliance, i.e. a refugee.
Wars begin, at least to my point of view, when alliances get involved. Attack one, attack them all. Most alliances I've seen have this same concept. Small one on one skirmishes not withstanding, if your alliance has to get involved, then you have a war.
What it all boils down to is that alliances are going to beat one another down. Conflict is going to come as each alliance grows and begins to expand into new territory. It's not going to matter who begins the war. What will matter is who ends it and who gets the victory.
Wars begin, at least to my point of view, when alliances get involved. Attack one, attack them all. Most alliances I've seen have this same concept. Small one on one skirmishes not withstanding, if your alliance has to get involved, then you have a war.
What it all boils down to is that alliances are going to beat one another down. Conflict is going to come as each alliance grows and begins to expand into new territory. It's not going to matter who begins the war. What will matter is who ends it and who gets the victory.
DeletedUser
Guest
I for one regularly attack active members of other alliances. Why? Well for one, they're the most likely to have troops so I can gain battlepoints, and it's also acts as a warning. If other alliance members reside in or near my alliance's core, they will be targeted. If the other Alliance really want to divert their resources and troops for one member or two members, well... then those members are gonna get rimmed and you may have find yourself in a tight spot.
Raiding is part of the game, alliances will not stop me from taking what I want.
Raiding is part of the game, alliances will not stop me from taking what I want.
DeletedUser
Guest
Ok FYI, The Greek Resistance is at with with Angels of Anarchy. Not big, just a little rim war.