Oh dear oh dear, SCC and Escape /sigh

Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser

Guest
Randalthor78 said:
To KristianMD and The Cracker I would like to say that you are both right and you are both wrong.

To decide who is a winner and who is a looser in a war we need to look at both gained territory and who is still around.

Lets take Ouzo as the example and 3 of there wars:

Ouzo vs MaccyD
I would consider this to be a Ouzo win because they gained territory in K45 and MaccyD did disband due to internal issues or not the fact that they disbanded led to Ouzo gaining more control and that MaccyD could not get it back

Ouzo vs DSQD
I would not consider this a war even so you would not get a win on this one.
The first one was like a declaration and they disbanded so soon after that you did not ave time to plan one op even. the second one ended in a merger so cant get a win on that one either.

Ouzo vs Axes
I would give axes the win here because they set out to control K34 and did so with ease and it does not matter that they did not go for a total kill on ouzo because the did get the lad area they wanted and Ouzo that turned into OCD did not want to fight for what they lost in K34.
Click to expand...

Great analysis! I have to disagree with faaaaaark and even agree with your assessment of the Axes war. After all, I had a couple of isolated K34 players that started it and the villages that Axes got ended up being those same players. They accomplished exactly what they set out to do. Those players could not take the heat and ended up quitting. If you have to award a win in this war I would say that Axes is more deserving.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Kriegselend said:
Hmmm, a lots been said and I couldn't continue the arguement even if I wanted to. So I'll stick to this bit:

Wardyuc, you say I joined Smack! with the intentions of nobling out Sir Victor? Puh-lease.

When I joined Smack!, I had no intentions of nobling Sir Victor. However, after being shown proof that Sir Victor had tried to frame me as the person who supposedly "hacked" his account when he dismissed 2/3rds of the tribe. I decided, that, heck one way to quit the world would be to noble him out. My co-player and I were bored to tears and I hadn't been able to farm in weeks, if you do remember that. So we decided to quit the world by taking out Sir Vic. Of course, the attack failed due to the amount of support he got in such a short amount of time. -.-" But it is not the point, you and/or him, had attempted to frame me as the hacker of your account. So don't go around and say I'm two-faced when you and sir vic were the ones pretending to be my friends!

As for the other related backstabbing accusations. Please show me one time, where I have backstabbed an ally. Just one time, show me how I have backstabbed a tribe ally and I will quit w41 instantly. Why do I ask you of this? Because I know you can't. I hold tribal diplomacy in a very high sense. Once a tribe backstabs another tribe, whether it be ally or NAP, they are permanently seered with a black mark on their diplomacy. Only a fool would trust the tribe again after they backstabbed someone. So no, I am not a backstabber, I have although, been backstabbed on many, many occasions.
Click to expand...
So if and when i show the conv me and Sir Vic saying it wasn't you then you quit tw ?
I mean realy. Heck we know who hacked our acount and we didn't blame you.
Heck you are on the team for .uk. Why not go check the support ticket where i even say
It must have been Nauz or someone in shots with him
Heck, i will even post the skype convs where we put people correct when they accuse you.
Come on, try harder!

If anyone does not belieive. ONE request and i will prove kv wrong.

Any more lies to add.....
Go on
 

DeletedUser65609

Guest
last 48 hrs:
Side 1:
Tribes: OCD
Players:

Side 2:
Tribes: SCC Escape
Players:

Timeframe: Last 48 hours

Total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 2
Side 2: 9
Difference: 7

image.php


Points value of total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 19,274
Side 2: 79,311
Difference: 60,037

image.php
 

mahtamori

Guest
KristianMD said:
If I remember your last op on axes you had like 5 caps and you gave Axes big ODD boost. Ofcourse, the next op would even things out. To bad you called it off at the last minute :icon_rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Offensives do tend to revolve around cracking well defended villages, which inevitably lead to big ODD wins for the defender. I have no doubt Ozou/OCD would be able to accomplish something with the next attack, but...
Not being able to handle diplomacy and borderlines with other tribes is every bit as bad an excuse as internal instability, if not worse. "We didn't lose because we pissed someone else off so they attacked us, so we had to cancel the war".
It's more or less the same as merging is part of war politics - you don't have to like it, but it's every bit a tool of war.

Then again, if you can deny you lost, why admit defeat? Yes it's lying, but can we really blame them?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
D

Rednecks said:
Great analysis! I have to disagree with faaaaaark and even agree with your assessment of the Axes war. After all, I had a couple of isolated K34 players that started it and the villages that Axes got ended up being those same players. They accomplished exactly what they set out to do. Those players could not take the heat and ended up quitting. If you have to award a win in this war I would say that Axes is more deserving.
Click to expand...
Shane, I tend to see things differently with this war. Admittedly, the players that started the skirmish (that ultimately ended up as a war) were removed by AXES, but they then had to deal with the newly formed OCD.

AXES were hours away from receiving our next offensive and we had stopped the rot in the north. The war had ground to a halt as both sides were rebuilding. AXES were rebuilding their defense and OCD were rebuilding their nukes. The DSQD war had ended and we had the ability to aim more nukes and support towards the north.

Whilst AXES had achieved their initial goal of securing their homelands, I will not call that winning a war. I call it winning a battle, as the next offensive was called off for other reasons. If the ~SCC~ war had not flared up, would we possibly be seeing a different outcome now? I think so...
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Ultimately AXES would have the disadvantage through sheer numbers.
We're only 24 members (19 at the time if I remember correct) so in the long run we might have lost the war... Let's say AXES achieved what they wanted and agreed on the NAP. But at their conditions. I assume OCD wouldn't want to fight on several fronts at a time either?
 

I iz Nub

Guest
My opinion of the AXES and OCD war:

AXES always had the disadvantage. Gaining the K back was simple. Scattered Ouzo players in our K with no real chance of support. Also, the only AXES players that were really in danger got every single village stacked. I think if the war had gone on with the two fronts before Ouzo merged with DSQD, the war would have remained a standstill. Whether Faaark says we were rebuilding or not, we really were in an okay position at the time.

Anyhow, when Ouzo merged with DSQD and Chuck!, they must have known that war was inevitable. ~SCC~ and Escape couldn't be happy with that decision. This was known by AXES. We saw the NAP as an opportunity to expand a different direction, rather than having a gangbang assault on a tribe that owns 5 K's.


Sorry I wrote this quickly. And I'm in a rush. I'd like to expand on what I'm saying but this covers the main topics.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Hmm... let's look at for last week's stats instead.

Side 1:
Tribes: OCD
Players:

Side 2:
Tribes: Escape ~SCC~
Players:

Timeframe: Last week

Total conquers:

Side 1: 327
Side 2: 367
Difference: 40

image.php


Total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 17
Side 2: 63
Difference: 46

image.php


Points value of total conquers:

Side 1: 2,293,706
Side 2: 2,604,957
Difference: 311,251

image.php


Points value of total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 133,963
Side 2: 534,025
Difference: 400,062

image.php


IMHO, OCD is not losing out in terms of total conquer villages as fast as they are losing their total conquer villages against Escape and ~scc~.

They lost to the other side 46 villages, but in terms of losing in total number of villages nobled, they only lost to the 2 tribes by 40 in whole of last week. This means that on the whole, they are still much more active and aggressive than both the tribes put together whereas maybe the other 2 tribes are just concentrating on OCD's isolated members. Concentrating too much I will say.

So in the long run, OCD may still be able to turn the table around, they probably just will have no choice but to sacrifice those isolated members while gaining as a tribe in the long run.

This is just an opinion looking at the stats.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Well looks like this wars give us excitement in the future, we don't know who's on the winning line,.. OCD collect many 'elite players' in this world so they are a solid tribe i think, the only winning sign of OCD is the downfall of Escape but that would be hard, all i can say is Good luck :icon_wink:
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Kesohnler said:
IMHO, OCD is not losing out in terms of total conquer villages as fast as they are losing their total conquer villages against Escape and ~scc~.

They lost to the other side 46 villages, but in terms of losing in total number of villages nobled, they only lost to the 2 tribes by 40 in whole of last week. This means that on the whole, they are still much more active and aggressive than both the tribes put together whereas maybe the other 2 tribes are just concentrating on OCD's isolated members. Concentrating too much I will say.
Click to expand...

Actually, the difference is bigger than 46 villages. 327 to 367 is for conquers only. This includes in-tribe eating and doesnt reflect villages lost.

Basically, of that 327, you need to take 63 off. Of the 367, you need to take 17 off. The real number is 264 to 350.

Then you need to factor in the in-tribe eating. Escape had 29, SCC had 54 and OCD 64. These also includes occurances where someone renobled himself as its still counted as a conquer in the stats you provided but really, this doesnt bring any growth (in fact, it does the opposite).

With these figures in mind, we get about 200 vs 267. Thats a bit more than 46 villages actually.

The war hasnt begun yet anyway. A handful of losses for a 2000+ villages tribe and that small a difference in overall caps is nothing to worry about. Its the same argument for the Axes vs OCD war. Whatever numbers they ended up being, it was never a full scale war, only a skirmish. Whether it was 40-5 or 35-10 at the end, its irrelevant. Neither tribe will go into panic mode after having lost 20 villages.

The difference with this war is its unlikely the OCD vs SCC/Esc war ends up in the same fate the Axes/OCD skirmish ended. Its actually not in the best interest of Esc to nap OCD just like it isnt for SCC to nap OCD. It also isnt in the best interest of OCD to nap any of these 2 tribes. Doing diplomatics is based on trust and I doubt there would be any so why even consider it?

It should actually be a pretty entertaining war.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
True that. Very detailed analysis, I had not looked so in dept into either tribes.

But yes, a lot of possibilities & opportunities for the top 20 tribes will be presented with this war no matter the outcome.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
For the record i am loving it!! How many days untill SCC finds another tribe to jump in on OCD though?

estimations anyone?
 

DeletedUser19099

Guest
i'm cute, see my avatar :(
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top