The End of World 4

DeletedUser

Guest
Yeah... kind of :p If you call retaking two villages from me "fighting" :D
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I think we should give neley credit for all his 6 caps the past months, even if two of them were retakes and the remaining four probably were accidental cross nobelings while trying to flee to K16 :)

Side 1:
Players: neley
Side 2:
Tribes: LIFE

Timeframe: Last 3 months

Total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 6
Side 2: 1,898
Difference: 1,892

chart


Not impressive stats, but I think he is still ahead of some other players left, in terms of enemy caps :)
- that said, demolishing own villages, the occasional queuing of troops, two retakes and a few cross nobelings while going for barbs may technically not count as "fighting".
 
Last edited by a moderator:

greenmonsta

Guest
I think we should give neley credit for all his 6 caps the past months, even if two of them were retakes and the remaining four probably were accidental cross nobelings while trying to flee to K16 :)

Side 1:
Players: neley
Side 2:
Tribes: LIFE

Timeframe: Last 3 months

Total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 6
Side 2: 1,898
Difference: 1,892

chart


Not impressive stats, but I think he is still ahead of some other players left, in terms of enemy caps :)
- that said, demolishing own villages, the occasional queuing of troops, two retakes and a few cross nobelings while going for barbs may technically not count as "fighting".

I think it would be called 'strategically retreating'. It was a tactic used by Russia quite successfully against Napoleon and Hitler when they invaded. The Russians scorched all their crops and just retreated, thus starving the advancing armies until they were in no state to fight.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I think it would be called 'strategically retreating'. It was a tactic used by Russia quite successfully against Napoleon and Hitler when they invaded. The Russians scorched all their crops and just retreated, thus starving the advancing armies until they were in no state to fight.

Let us scratch the "strategically" and just call it retreating :) In contrast to real life wars, there are no supply lines and risk of starving to death while extending your territory and building armies :)
 

greenmonsta

Guest
Let us scratch the "strategically" and just call it retreating :) In contrast to real life wars, there are no supply lines and risk of starving to death while extending your territory and building armies :)

No, He knows he can't defend those villages, so instead of wasting defence trying, he's letting them go and moving back to a safer line that he can defend. Thats strategy, hence strategic retreat. Retreating is the same as quitting, and he's not quitting.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Sometimes I wonder, if you are doing this on purpose or if you honestly don't understand how this game works :)

No, He knows he can't defend those villages, so instead of wasting defence trying, he's letting them go and moving back to a safer line that he can defend.
You don't "save" defense by losing your villages without a fight. In this game, troops are limited by your farm levels and your total farm levels are limited by your villages. Losing your villages and thus your "troops factories" is how you waste troops. Any village you give up without a fight is a new possible army to your enemy and a lost defensive troops factory for yourself.

Thats strategy, hence strategic retreat.
Losing 1898 villages and taking two back while getting rimmed is "strategy"? Doesn't look like it is a good strategy though, judging from where it has brought its supporters :)

Retreating is the same as quitting, and he's not quitting.
So he made a strategic retreat, and retreating = quitting. So he made a strategic quitting, but he is not quitting? I think your logic is a bit flawed. Retreat doesn't change its meaning just because you say it was a "fast retreat", "slow retreat", etc. :)

There are many games such as Hex, where at some point there is a clear and simple strategy for victory. At that point, when playing with my friends, we agree who is the winner and move on with the next game. We are long past that point in W4. Whichever slow and annoying way you decide to "strategically" lose this game, it doesn't change the fact that you lost. I play this game, because it is fun to attack/defend and fight the wars. Leaving this game as victor with a top rank is just a side effect. It is hard for me to understand how you can login week after week, only to check that you are one step closer to losing.
 

waterdrinker

Guest
No, He knows he can't defend those villages, so instead of wasting defence trying, he's letting them go and moving back to a safer line that he can defend. Thats strategy, hence strategic retreat. Retreating is the same as quitting, and he's not quitting.

neley
Points: 0
Rank: 82


Yea...good strategy :icon_rolleyes:
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Yeah, I know I played pretty shite, lol!

But, I was never going to win, even if i had 10 times the population in each village. You were all too large. Plus, I really havnt had the time, oh well.

I'm playing speed worlds now, its quick and you can chose when you play around whatever. If anyone wants a fight send me a message and we can arrange something. I'm top 20 in the world atm.

Anyway, well played guys, the more powerful team won. I hope to see you around - no hard feelings :)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
i dont post often and ive been here ages lol..... anyway , would like to say i have enjoyed my "mostly" peaceful existance on this world . compared to most of you ive hardly fired a shot :p

but this month i'm getting active ,,,,,,,,,,,grrr ... now where did those barbs go ? :p
 
Top