The War of the World?

[ashoka1]

havok ....

whatever account he joins...gets rimmed...

I am happy that my request f or having an op on account run by havok was accepted.

 

[DeletedUser]

Still cant match some peoples attacker though

I have't tried.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well I agree with you to an extent. Jf helping clear up is helping reduce Calm. losses. However he is clearing up in the wrong places. Of the 264 Calm. internals Jf has taken in the last month, a vast majority of them have been in K52/62. That is nearly 3 continents away from SPAM's nearest village and very close to his main cluster.

HTM on the other hand, whilst also not clearing up frontline villages, has taken only 38 internals in the last month. He has also taken 106 Calm./PISSED villages compared to Jf's 12 SPAM villages. Jfs ODA has increased 2.9 million in the last month compared to HTM's 15.2 million (34.5Ds killed vs 190Ds killed). One could assume that most of that ODA goes towards the SPAM-Calm. war.

The problem comparing the two is that I am assuming that HTM was in a better position to fight calm/pissed where as the bulk of jf's villages are 2 k's away from the front. If the positions were equal the amount of ODA and enemy captures would be a little more even I would think. this is not taking anything away from HTM as the stats speak for themselves.

 

[DeletedUser]

The problem comparing the two is that I am assuming that HTM was in a better position to fight calm/pissed where as the bulk of jf's villages are 2 k's away from the front. If the positions were equal the amount of ODA and enemy captures would be a little more even I would think. this is not taking anything away from HTM as the stats speak for themselves.

I dont agree with this HTM wasnt that frontline at the start of the war they just bossed it. Also even if JF couldnt noble he should have atleast nuked, he cant have needed that many nukes. I mean seriously the #2 account with #26 ODA come on man.

I have't tried.

Bring it biatch, im pretty much ready to go again, say hello lori

 

[DeletedUser]

Actually a big problem we had was having almost no frontline villages. I think we started with maybe 5-10 in K67 for killing off Katzuo. The RP vils we took were mostly in our home K's as well...

The first time we took a proper cluster on the front was recently in K56 and we're working on one in K66 too!

Louis you sure that's a contest you're wanting to try?

Ben

 

[DeletedUser]

The problem comparing the two is that I am assuming that HTM was in a better position to fight calm/pissed where as the bulk of jf's villages are 2 k's away from the front. If the positions were equal the amount of ODA and enemy captures would be a little more even I would think. this is not taking anything away from HTM as the stats speak for themselves.

Like the others have said, HTM was in the same position as jfsmith. The only Calm. villages he was near too at the start of the war was spunky (who of course is barb) and RP, who had 30-50 villages (not sure exactly) in K47/48 which HTM easily gobbled up.

He earned his villages on the frontline and now he his nobleing with them. His front still isnt half as big as some others, but he utilizes it well. Why couldn't Jf do the same???

Taylor

 

[DeletedUser]

I've never understand the better position card. Doesn't a tactician make sure they are in a position for any war that may befall their own tribe? I always read about how one side or one person had more opportunity, but isn't the reality that everyone had the same opportunities, it's just a matter of how they used that opportunity? Doesn't it make more sense to play out your term in the game, spreading to all areas possible, to all fronts possible, building enough to be able to handle a short term onslaught (relying on tribe for long term onslaught) but not over building, so you can move to the next place? At the end of the day, every member of a tribe, should be in a position to make a move in any war that comes their way, and if they are not, then they've done themselves, and their tribe, an injustice in not playing their opportunity right.

My own opinion of course, feel free to tear it apart, or explain the logic behind the 'position card'.

 

[ampac]

I've never understand the better position card. Doesn't a tactician make sure they are in a position for any war that may befall their own tribe? I always read about how one side or one person had more opportunity, but isn't the reality that everyone had the same opportunities, it's just a matter of how they used that opportunity? Doesn't it make more sense to play out your term in the game, spreading to all areas possible, to all fronts possible, building enough to be able to handle a short term onslaught (relying on tribe for long term onslaught) but not over building, so you can move to the next place? At the end of the day, every member of a tribe, should be in a position to make a move in any war that comes their way, and if they are not, then they've done themselves, and their tribe, an injustice in not playing their opportunity right.

My own opinion of course, feel free to tear it apart, or explain the logic behind the 'position card'.

Greetings Are you kidden,

I could explain the logic behind that position card but its to early to do that as the world has still bout 2k players playing, activity comes to play also and strategy but its more than that..

War is a word thats has been taken for granted by players on all situations, they think nobling, nuking( by the thousands), would work.


Some strategies would remain a secret...

 

[DeletedUser]

Actually a big problem we had was having almost no frontline villages. I think we started with maybe 5-10 in K67 for killing off Katzuo. The RP vils we took were mostly in our home K's as well...

The first time we took a proper cluster on the front was recently in K56 and we're working on one in K66 too!

Louis you sure that's a contest you're wanting to try?

Ben

As i said before, BRING IT BIATCH

I've never understand the better position card. Doesn't a tactician make sure they are in a position for any war that may befall their own tribe? I always read about how one side or one person had more opportunity, but isn't the reality that everyone had the same opportunities, it's just a matter of how they used that opportunity? Doesn't it make more sense to play out your term in the game, spreading to all areas possible, to all fronts possible, building enough to be able to handle a short term onslaught (relying on tribe for long term onslaught) but not over building, so you can move to the next place? At the end of the day, every member of a tribe, should be in a position to make a move in any war that comes their way, and if they are not, then they've done themselves, and their tribe, an injustice in not playing their opportunity right.

My own opinion of course, feel free to tear it apart, or explain the logic behind the 'position card'.

Think about this a 5m account based up in k26/27 trying to hit calm when the skirmish first started, eg k55/56, they can nuke and send D maybe someone will gift them a couple of villas or they can get some in a big tribal op. They could if they put the time and effort and played their cards right get a few villa's on that front but it would be slow growth. Then take a 5m player based mainly in k55/56 who is of equal skill, now would positioning make a difference in this case?

 

[DeletedUser]

As i said before, BRING IT BIATCH



Think about this a 5m account based up in k26/27 trying to hit calm when the skirmish first started, eg k55/56, they can nuke and send D maybe someone will gift them a couple of villas or they can get some in a big tribal op. They could if they put the time and effort and played their cards right get a few villa's on that front but it would be slow growth. Then take a 5m player based mainly in k55/56 who is of equal skill, now would positioning make a difference in this case?

Louis while I agree with you that where you're positioned has a direct effect on at least your immediate gains from a war, there is always a way to get onto a front - be it through internals, barbs, trains or whatever else... So I think both of you make good points

Ben

 

[DeletedUser105935]

i agreeidont knowi i got theright end of the stick but shorely from experience i find its better to have larger clusters oon posible front so if needed they can be ike a seprate operating account. this is good for multi war and for getting involved everywere but having fair areaona front puts you in harms way and gives you the chance to build and prove yourself at the end of the day the more skill the player hasthe better but say a 5 millplayer istaking on a 15millheemaybe the bestbuthe will struggle due to sheer volume.

 

[DeletedUser]

Think about this a 5m account based up in k26/27 trying to hit calm when the skirmish first started, eg k55/56, they can nuke and send D maybe someone will gift them a couple of villas or they can get some in a big tribal op. They could if they put the time and effort and played their cards right get a few villa's on that front but it would be slow growth. Then take a 5m player based mainly in k55/56 who is of equal skill, now would positioning make a difference in this case?

Ahh but that's what I'm talking about, the above is trying to play the position card... but if a person had planned ahead of time... Why don't they have a small percentage of those 5m points down in K55/56 on that war front, just in case something happens down there? Why aren't they prepared for that eventuality. A 5m point player who hung out in K26/27 the whole time, is at some point going to limit his growth because of his choice not to spread out, or not be able to participate in a war. Why didn't they have villages on the east front, and the west front, the north and the south fronts of their tribe, so if the tribe got forced into a war, or had to move a certain way, they could participate.

I understand in your scenario, the position card can be played, but if the player had been proactive, had been sitting on all tribal fronts, the card wouldn't be available, and since tactically every player should be proactive, it rather nullifies the card so to speak. All you need is 10 villages on a front, 100k points to be able to have an impact when war comes. Well defended, nobling platforms so to speak, nukes from afar, nobles from close, with some defense close to hold until more ranged defense can make it. The more a tribe works together to cover some of the rover defense in those scenarios, the bigger effect/damage a 10 village front can do in a war.

Being spread out in small clusters has some other added effects for those who enjoy living a life outside a game. I know what it's like when running an operation, having to stay up late to get attacks off, to make sure you have enough nukes in front of your trains, or can get the defense in to cut a noble train coming in. When you have villages everywhere, you can come in, and almost always have something available within an hour to cover off what you need to do..

 

[DeletedUser]

AYK, interweaving is, as a general rule of thumb, a weak strategy when it comes to war. The problem is that it is a double edged sword, whilst being slightly stronger offensively, it is extremely weak defensively. Generally the tribes who win using it are only winning due to other superiorities (such as activity, size or skill).

Lets go into a hypothetical:

Tribe A is at war with Tribe B.
Tribe A has a front in K?? containing 1 player with 100 villages
Tribe B has a front in K?? containing 10 players with 10 villages each
Each village in K?? contains 4 full Defensive villages plus full village of front-liners choice.

Lets now say that Tribe A and Tribe B are completely evenly matched and decide to Op each others fronts with 8 nukes per village and this wipes out all of the stacks on both fronts with both tribes dodging their frontline troops.

The question here is, who has the advantage?

Tribe A is superior in 1 matter, number of nobles. In every other area it is vastly inferior. Because of the way that frontline outposts work, most of the villages are going to be offensive, which limits both the ability to defend villages that the 10 players can take as well as the 10 players already have once the stacks are gone. The 10 players also need 10 sitters/coplayers, the 1 player only needs 1. Without the backline defense, the frontline is essentially useless and is overrun by the other tribe.

The best thing about this, is generally those tribes who use this strategy are also very offensive, which is also weak in the late game, where defence becomes far superior to offense. SPAM vs Calm./PISSED war is a perfect example of this. If you look at the main theater of war, you see the very defensive SPAM tanking Calm.'s Offensives, putting 25 Calm. players out of the war using Ashoka1 alone, despite being 2/3 of Calm.'s size. SPAM's frontline is so overpowered because it contains a few players in very strong positions rather than many players in very weak positions, which allows them to wall attacks and gradually advance.

 

[DeletedUser105935]

Thing is with that is if one player up and quits like in calm the front crumbles and it gets harder cause they have to munch and keep all the players old villas witch meens less effort at the front

 

[DeletedUser]

I disagree entirely with it being a weaker strategy, while your points are sound, there are far deeper reasons for it to be effective.

- When you've got 10 players, with 10 villages, it's 10 different accounts, attacking at 10 different times, forcing defensive maneuvers throughout the day, not just at set times. In this game, you get to choose when you attack, but you don't get to choose when you defend, and the person who is the most over worked on defense, is often the first one to quit.
- defensive tribes rarely last late game, because of their slow progress, they end up quitting before the end.. This is a game of attrition, while defense is necessary, the one who is playing the more enjoyable game, generally sticks around the longest.
- a person who takes losses on a frontline, when interwoven (as you call it), takes minimal losses of a few villages, and you can re-draw a line to stop the onslaught, and stack it back up. The single player takes massive losses if they don't hold, often setting them back to the point where they don't often want to continue on. Again, it's a game of attrition.
- having 10 players in the area means you have 10 chances for a person to log on to be able to send support if you are under attack, while being a person with a big cluster means you can only rely on your own support. The chances are when you are being attacked as the only person on the front, all your villages are getting bombarded, which means a lot of dodging, and its difficult to have the defense at home. More often than not, when there are 10 people ont hat frontline, a tribe will pick on 2-3 of them only, leaving 7 others free to shuffle their D around.

The biggest draw back to being interwoven is that a tribe needs to act, and function as one, but if a tribe can do that, it can be a fairly dominating strategy that keeps players interested in the game far longer, as they've always got something to do, and rarely take huge losses when at war. I personally feel that a tribe who does work and act as one often, are more likely to play it out to the end.

 

[DeletedUser]

I disagree entirely with it being a weaker strategy, while your points are sound, there are far deeper reasons for it to be effective.

- When you've got 10 players, with 10 villages, it's 10 different accounts, attacking at 10 different times, forcing defensive maneuvers throughout the day, not just at set times. In this game, you get to choose when you attack, but you don't get to choose when you defend, and the person who is the most over worked on defense, is often the first one to quit.
- defensive tribes rarely last late game, because of their slow progress, they end up quitting before the end.. This is a game of attrition, while defense is necessary, the one who is playing the more enjoyable game, generally sticks around the longest.
- a person who takes losses on a frontline, when interwoven (as you call it), takes minimal losses of a few villages, and you can re-draw a line to stop the onslaught, and stack it back up. The single player takes massive losses if they don't hold, often setting them back to the point where they don't often want to continue on. Again, it's a game of attrition.
- having 10 players in the area means you have 10 chances for a person to log on to be able to send support if you are under attack, while being a person with a big cluster means you can only rely on your own support. The chances are when you are being attacked as the only person on the front, all your villages are getting bombarded, which means a lot of dodging, and its difficult to have the defense at home. More often than not, when there are 10 people ont hat frontline, a tribe will pick on 2-3 of them only, leaving 7 others free to shuffle their D around.

The biggest draw back to being interwoven is that a tribe needs to act, and function as one, but if a tribe can do that, it can be a fairly dominating strategy that keeps players interested in the game far longer, as they've always got something to do, and rarely take huge losses when at war. I personally feel that a tribe who does work and act as one often, are more likely to play it out to the end.

The main problem with interweaving is that most people do not want to do it and rightly so. This is because 99.9% of tribes in a world fail. When tribes fail, interwoven players become isolated and get picked off very easily, especially if they are unable to find a tribe afterwards. Moreover, it is very difficult to find new tribes, especially if your tribe lost due to a war. It is a lot easier for a victorious tribe to pick up an easily defendable cluster player versus a spread out player. For a player to be willing to do that sort of strategy, they have to be completely confident that their tribe is going to win the world. This is fine for a prestigious premade where you know you have an advantage against an opponent (activity, skill, dedication, leadership), but for a K based tribe made up of mostly local players and led by some random dude who decided it would be fun to start a tribe like SPAM was, I could not expect people to think that.

That strategy needs activity, teamwork, loyalty and commitment, which will guarantee tribe success anyways, whether that particular strategy is used or not.

 

[DeletedUser]

The main problem with interweaving is that most people do not want to do it and rightly so. This is because 99.9% of tribes in a world fail. When tribes fail, interwoven players become isolated and get picked off very easily, especially if they are unable to find a tribe afterwards. Moreover, it is very difficult to find new tribes, especially if your tribe lost due to a war. It is a lot easier for a victorious tribe to pick up an easily defendable cluster player versus a spread out player. For a player to be willing to do that sort of strategy, they have to be completely confident that their tribe is going to win the world. This is fine for a prestigious premade where you know you have an advantage against an opponent (activity, skill, dedication, leadership), but for a K based tribe made up of mostly local players and led by some random dude who decided it would be fun to start a tribe like SPAM was, I could not expect people to think that.

That strategy needs activity, teamwork, loyalty and commitment, which will guarantee tribe success anyways, whether that particular strategy is used or not.

Well put, and point well taken, my experiences are truly limited to a few well put together tribes, and I didn't end up hopping around from tribe to tribe for the most part. I can imagine being spread out it'd be incredibly hard to integrate me into a new tribe, and in the end I would likely be a sitting target, because it truly only does work on a tribe that you expect to last. That said, I also expect any tribe I'm joining not to be a stepping stone, but to be the tribe that's going to make it to the end, whether it fails or not is another question all together, but I personally never played the game from anything other than a tribal perspective which I guess is why I'm so pro to spreading out, and making the most of a tribal situation.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well put, and point well taken, my experiences are truly limited to a few well put together tribes, and I didn't end up hopping around from tribe to tribe for the most part. I can imagine being spread out it'd be incredibly hard to integrate me into a new tribe, and in the end I would likely be a sitting target, because it truly only does work on a tribe that you expect to last. That said, I also expect any tribe I'm joining not to be a stepping stone, but to be the tribe that's going to make it to the end, whether it fails or not is another question all together, but I personally never played the game from anything other than a tribal perspective which I guess is why I'm so pro to spreading out, and making the most of a tribal situation.

I think it is better to be cautious than get caught out. I am the sort of person who refuses to join elitist premades (I have problems joining most of these premades anyways, but thats a completely different issue) and generally ends up starting the world and joining a random tribe. From personal experience, I have been in a lot of bad tribes. Some of those bad tribes, I have even thought were good. For example, in W32, which we both played, I played in two poor tribes that I thought were alright when I was in them. The problem was that I was only comparing them to tribes I had been in before or the nearby area rather than actual good tribes. I dislike hopping as much as the next guy, but as a player, I realise it is nearly inevitable. I can list the number of players I know who haven't had to ever move tribes on W60 on one hand. There may only be two on W60, of which I am one.

Thing is, you never know how good your tribe is until it hits a wall. Calm. was unstoppable until it hit a wall, that being inactivity or SPAM (you take your pick). SPAM is quite easily the strongest tribe I have been in up till this point in my playing, but for all I know, it may be weak in comparison to some other tribe that could arise on W60. That is why I understand why people prefer their own turf.

 

[DeletedUser]

havok ....

whatever account he joins...gets rimmed...

I am happy that my request f or having an op on account run by havok was accepted.

To be fai, havok hasnt run any account, hes always just been last man standing after account owners and other cos up and quit after the real fireworks start. There is only so much one person cna do alone though when under the kind of pressure those accounts have faced. I have respect for a guy that faces off against all odds like that.

 

[MR.MR]

I would take a tribe full of havoks. But then every tribe around me would have to title their declarations "Wreaking Havoks"