Wars

[DeletedUser]

It is the same arguments on a new server. Someone isn't as good as they think they are, so they have to find a reason they are losing.

Wow 25-60 cities a week, out of over 2200 cities. Man that has to be really tough. So at most your are defending 2% of your cities per week. And you still can't save them.

 

[DeletedUser]

you guys keep posting about city count. But the sad fact is we went into this war with 20+ inactive players and about 400 inactive cities. TBH I'm Surprised TMN and TSF haven't taken more, because they surely could have. All our active players have slots completely full. With that being said, yea it hurts watching them take cities and us not taking any from them. But we have done as good a job as we could eating our inactives, we just don't have slots. They haven't taken an active city in the core from active players. The few cities they have taken in our core are from inactives, and we have got most of them back. It's not even worth attacking them when we have our hands full eating our fat. And thats exactly what they are doing, eating our fat.... THANK YOU. As players from BCC should know very well, fewer active players beat more inactive players any day, and they are forcing us into a fit alliance... again thank you. Since the war started we still have grown almost 5 million, 100k to our average, and 500 cities... I guess that's what you call a sinking alliance...

 

[DeletedUser]

Oh common ... the inactive excuse and then the spin that we should have taken more ... that excuse is as old as this game. Flat out we all deal with inactives. Where you see an alliance with far more inactives to deal with is usually a sign that people are not happy with the way things going with the alliance or have lost faith in the leadership ... I will let you pick one. Also a big piece of the 400 inactives are in oceans out of TMN/TSF reach at the moment.

Now your growth comes only from Merc which was absorbed by TC and eating TCC which is dropping fast in cities and points. The notion that you have grown is laughable. It's tricks by numbers and overall you have shrunk in size gaining only what you have taken from TCC. Mamluks have caught you in points and passed you in number of cities. You no longer control 55 as TSF has more cities in 55.

Last week the excuse for Mamluks growth in Cities takes from you guys was that you were focused on TSF. Is this a case of throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks.

Questionable numbers and your view of them is just the latest in a long line of trying to say you're not losing this war

 

[DeletedUser]

call it an excuse, I think I was by far being the most honest, we have that same amount of players, more cities, more points and a higher average. Yes less players in TCC and we picked up a some mercs. Yet we have a more active alliance, and only 60 people get the crown. Plus an excuse as old as grepo, I wouldn't know, I've never seen it, I've only stated what actually happened. I'll let the crankyoldman acted like the crankyyoungbaby and do all the poo throwing.

 

[DeletedUser]

LOL...at thinking a crown is meaningful. Look this player up - Jon2511. He has a crown, and the most cities he ever had on any server was 3. Shows anyone can get a crown if they stick around long enough.

Inactives are a sign of improper recruiting, lack of leadership, not feeling at home in the alliance, and to some extant RL. A good alliance should never have 400 inactive cities. But when someone quits without notice, shows there is a disconnect in the chain of command, or a lack of respect to the alliance.

You are being forced to reorganize, I bet you would continue simming if TMN and TSF weren't attacking you. So, you either trim your fat like you say and become better, or you realize you don't have fighters only simmers, and you continue having inactive problems. I think the later is going to happen.

 

[DeletedUser]

...Inactives are a sign of improper recruiting, lack of leadership, not feeling at home in the alliance, and to some extant RL. A good alliance should never have 400 inactive cities. But when someone quits without notice, shows there is a disconnect in the chain of command, or a lack of respect to the alliance. ...

That is the most ignorant thing that has been said on this thread. Who are you to say that it is anyone's fault that RL takes precedence over a GAME? Do you know the circumstances that made someone leave? Are you omniscient all of a sudden? Can you tell me how much population I have available in any of my cities? No, you can't. So stop talking in generalities like that, because a majority of the time they just don't fit the circumstances. They almost never do.

I had a lot of respect for BCC's play up until that statement. It shows just how narrow-minded people really are. The sad part? It is a view that is shared by many players in this game throughout every alliance. My goal in this isn't winning. I could care less about a crown. What I try to do is facilitate an environment where my alliance members can have fun. Nothing else matters. But when people make things personal, it throws people into a defensive attitude and takes the fun out of the game.

I mean, come on! It's Christmas!

...eating our fat. And thats exactly what they are doing, eating our fat....

I have never once considered most of those that left as "fat." DeathLord, for example. Even though he did us dirty, I have mad respect for his play. Or zmonsma? He may have been simming most of the time, but he was there whenever he was asked to be...and it's not his fault, or leadership's, that work and a new baby took precedence over grepo. I could continue on. And on. And on.

Those I would consider as the "fat" of the alliance are those who walked into Lamia as beginners and had no prior experience. They were happy and gung-ho when they started, got a good start with us and had every intention of being active, but just didn't have the stamina to hang with this type of game. It happens. Once again, to say that giving someone a chance is a bad thing and the fault of leadership is just wrong. You want a good example of a newb who is rocking it? SearsRepairman. 'Nuff said.

 

[DeletedUser]

I never said RL doesn't take precedence, it always does. But that isn't always the reason people quit, and the majority of the time people will just say they are busy in RL as their excuse to quit. Truth is, you really don't need any other reason than you don't want to play anymore. And I listed those reason. So, if I hit a nerve, there must be some truth in it.

It wasn't a personal attack, I didn't quote you. If you want to take it personally, again must be some truth to it to be so defensive. And yes, if I had a spy report, I could get pretty close to what you have in your city

Just because you think your situation is fun, doesn't mean someone else does. And don't act like I haven't been trough the same thing on another server. When the alliance cap is 100, you have to deal with inactives all the time. Most of those inactives weren't having fun, so they left. So, I am speaking from experience when it comes to this...but wait...no...I am just narrow-minded.

 

[DeletedUser]

I was focusing on the "But when someone quits without notice, shows there is a disconnect in the chain of command, or a lack of respect to the alliance...." part. Most of those that were taken from us VM quit, and told everyone they would be back before they hit VM. Then they get jumped on when they fall out of VM and most of their cities are right out on the front. What's the most important part of real estate? Location, location, location? lol.

 

[DeletedUser]

The is exactly my point. If they cared, they would have come back and facilitated hand-offs. You probably did your best to connect with them, but obviously there was a disconnect. We all have had those issues, mine are players we find out are simmers and are scared of losing their troops. They get left in the safe zone, then get bored. That was our fault as leaders, either not recognizing the type of player they were, or not making them feel comfortable enough to actually fight.

 

[DeletedUser]

If they don't want to fight the alliance we are at war with, there is no amount of catering or cajoling that will get them to participate in attacks. There is no possible way to make every single member of the alliance happy. Either people were happy being safe before and now they are surrounded by enemies, or they were upset being surrounded by friendlies and are now surrounded by targets. One will be happy with the change. The other? Not so much. I personally know of 4 of our members off the top of my head who wanted to come back and hand off cities, but were unable to get on and facilitate the transfers. Those could account for at least 30 of the cities lost.

But that backs up MY point. Generalizations should not be made that "they're winning" or "they're getting pimp-smacked" based ALONE on city counts and the amount of attacks made externally. Have we been attacking externally very often? No, we haven't. And when we were, a vast majority of the attacks were focused on TSF. We have been forced to plow through enemy support placed in our OWN inactives on several occasions, which is a chore. Or, being forced to support someone blocked from logging in but can still be attacked (not saying more than that on that subject...).

I'm not arguing that they are being taken before we can get them. I'm only arguing that making that the analysis basis of the state of an alliance and their position in a war is taking statistics out a bit out of context. Friends and team members leave for extenuating circumstances, others become disgruntled, and those remaining are forced to pick up the pieces. More often than not, this becomes a sick, downward spiral of which I am very familiar (Dark Elite). You know what I'm talking about, I'm sure, which is probably why you kept your alliance small containing only extremely active members.

I am extremely proud of my team and what we have been able to achieve given the circumstances.

 

[DeletedUser]

Everyone member in my alliance is happy, so yes it is possible. Generalizations need to be made, how else are we going to get a rise out of people?

And your third paragraph, just exemplifies my point.

Time will tell if losing your inactive cities hurt you, or make you stronger. It is usually the former.

 

[DeletedUser]

Yeah, we'll see. There's still at least 5 months before strategies are flipped on their head.

 

[DeletedUser]

5 months is an eternity in Grepo. Heck, Grepo changes every week.

 

[DeletedUser]

I know. I was referring to it in both connotations. It's hard to believe we have been at this for over 6 months already. Seems like only a couple months ago I was planning on hitting a Crimson Warriors city.

A lot can happen in 5 months, but it's hard to believe we are already better than 6 months into the server.

 

[redmage111]

I just want to say it's been a real enjoyable time playing this server, you all are a good group

 

[DeletedUser]

Wow. Cant believe i just wasted 2 minutes reading all that. War thread indeed lol. Vig is getting owned and TC is getting owned. Soon they will "Merge" to make everything better. But merging wont change a thing. I talked to a guy in Vig who is quitting. He told me there is no leadership in the alliance. The core group in Vig just supports themselves and leaves every one else on there own. Another Vig player who is quitting is so upset with his alliance he resets his academy's before we take his cities. We never even asked for it. Just shows how messed up things are over there. I cant say to much about TC because i am just now getting near you guys. We all have small alliances since we can only have 60 members. I've never seen large alliances with 150 members have so many inactives. That tells me there is a problem there.

 

[DeletedUser10363]

The entire external forum is just a glorified circle jerk. People who are currently the king of the hill come on here to announce how great they are and stroke the egos of their allies.


To sum the entire server up: Pride comes before the fall.


The Oxin Venorus/XpertGreek/Aesur/Firebrand Period:
[SPR]These guys would mark their territory on your forehead just to let you know they could. XG and Aesur were the forum divas and craved recognition. Same with Oxin/FB. Where are they now?[/SPR]

The Interim Period:
[SPR]This was the transitional phaze after Dark Elite dissolved and Manifest Destiny started. Most of the initial start ups fizzled out during this period and some of the stalwarts in the core began their downward spiral. White Tiger Emporium, Hell Hounds, Tequila Mockinbird, The Uglies, Lords of Olympus, etc etc... All of these changes were directly a result of the ongoing battles among the core powers. Infection/SoulCatchers vs MD/Mercs.

All the while the rim alliances are stockpiling defense in the rear guard (mamluks). Mamluks just now passed Infection in total DBP which is pretty telling. [/spr]

The Great Consolidations:
[SPR]Mercs 2 branches off from Mercs w/ TWP and re-brands their image. TSF is born. MD and INF stop bludgeoning each other and join forces. The Collective is born. Boondock Saints and a few other southern alliances band together. Vigilate is born (technically happened prior to the other two).[/SPR]

Fast forward to where we are now....
[SPR]Who/What are/were the catalysts? Where to begin....I think most people have beat this dead horse enough. However there are a few glaring omissions specifically relating to TSF/Mercs/TC/Mamluk/KOTR.

The first was the drama surrounding xxxAlicia and her constant quitting/returning and the division it created between those who thought Clint did a good job of stopping the losses to Inf and those who were loyal to Alicia. Cliques form...

This situation was compounded after TC/Mercs ended the pact with TSF. Some in mercs understandably refused to attack. This situation paralleled the popular thought about Lamia at the time which was that is was a big love fest of pacts (which was the alleged reason to turn TSF red). Vigilate was also affected by this after they ran into a red flag shortage. This in turn led to simming, which led to loss of interest and inactivity.

The next factor would have to be the continued division of TC after the merge due to lingering bad blood between Inf/MD. I will admit this contributed to my own period of inactivity after growing tired of trying to make all sides happy. The same thing was also happening in Mercs.

All of this reached a climax when the war between TSF and KOTR ended in a pact. This was followed by Cranky withdrawing from our pact citing all the strife and accusations in the shared forums on top of colonies on the 55/65 border. Then 1map takes his lackeys and goes to TSF and we get bombarded on 3 sides from TSF/KOTR/Mamluk resulting in massive losses on our side.

Only after this does our leadership learn that King Rootin Tootin was actually xxxAlicia the entire time. "He" inadvertently reveals (prior to us knowing her identity) that "he" has known about 1maps intentions for weeks. "He" tells us that 1map has been prepping his cities for the day he makes the move knowing full well we would be very angry and attack immediately. After dropping the bomb shell that he/she knew this entire time, Skyreaver (TC co-founder) decides to inform me he also knew of KRT's identity and all the details but did not mention it. Skyreaver then ghosts all of his cities and a large number of our players based in the far south, far north, and far east all go into VM to prevent massive losses during the onslaught.

We then start to pick up the pieces and transition from offense heavy to defense. All of these players who go on VM come out at roughly the same time which just so happens to coincide with the random inno mass bans.

No excuses made and none needed. We have been in the middle of the fight since day one. Adversity and external perceptions aren't going send us running for the hills.. Quite the contrary...It gave our two factions (MD/Inf) something to rally around while exposing those who were simply using us as a shield. A month from now we can revisit and reflect [/SPR]

 

[DeletedUser]

Here we go again ... you predicted that Dark Elite would own the core ... that failed. You predicted that Infection would fall in 2 weeks to me and in the end after a month of going against a weakened Infection you didn't get it done and without consulting your allies in advance you went ahead with the merge with Infection. Even Clint was surprised. You see KZG we all see that when things get tough you scramble to the next person to protect you. As for inno bans, we are not suppose to talk about that but as for VM dropouts that generally is a leadership problem ... to date every Mamluk who wanted to leave handed their cities over or transferred their accounts ... that even impresses me, as I never seen such a group of players that wish to work together as a team.

Now I'm assuming you are so cryptically talking about something we all know is going own. We do have experience on our side of the war and can read a map. You pretty much have lost the core and despite your turtling the front we still take cities from you or any other alliance you may want to put in front of us.

Why wait a month, just do it.

 

[DeletedUser10363]

Well that would take all of the fun out of it Mr. Cranky pants.

If the Artemisia event was any indication of the all powerful Mamluk's ability to execute and organize, then I hope they plan on giving out a 4th place trophy for WW.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well that would take all of the fun out of it Mr. Cranky pants.

If the Artemisia event was any indication of the all powerful Mamluk's ability to execute and organize, then I hope they plan on giving out a 4th place trophy for WW.

Boy you missed what we were doing ... we didn't have all parts of the alliance going for one target we split to do 2 at once. The prizes were ok but we wanted to see if we could beat everyone that way ... I knew that we would get chances at those prizes in other events so it was no big deal. We got 3 and 5th not 4th ... another fib KZG3, seems you can't help yourself. In addition you tricked us into attacking TSF promising to joining in and then not show up ... not really a nice thing to do to an ally ... hence one of the many reason we tossed you're alliance aside and declared war which we are winning in a big way.

BTW if it wasn't for us you would have been 3rd not second. Keep in mind we were allies and could have easily stopped you also in the same manner. Also by your own admission you were all offense and at the time we had 200 cities less than you and you only beat us by 1 hr 30min ... that doesn't sound like you beat us by much.

It's funny that you claim we are not able to organize ... taking many cities with barely a response from you and you say we can't organize. So basically you are still throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks ... that's a big sign of someone who can't lie his way out of a problem he created.

Also you seem to have a high number of inactives, as you claim we take nothing but that. How many cities have TSF/TMN/Knights alliance has taken from you ... I think it's approaching 400 by now and since you claim we only take inactives thats becomes a significant number. So who can't organize? Seems you can't keep people interested in the game under your leadership and thats most likely comes from the inability to organize a solid team.

Oh and to point out something about how delusional KZG is ... where is it a bad thing that low DBP is suppose to be. The fact that we destroyed every alliance we met without a big firefight from the other side is actually not our fault and actually if you follow the logic of it means we are pretty good in planning on offensive attack. This speaks more to the abilities of the other alliances not ours. We grow in city numbers and points (without transfers) at a much faster pace than you do.