C² vs. LSHRV

[DeletedUser]

u6s5l

I must say I appreciate all them stats. I assume they are all correct and wont check them.

This stat here basically sums it up for me.

C²: +1,279 villages
Plight: +1,066 villages
SF: +198 villages
Plight and SF combined: +1,264 villages

If anyone ever thought this would be a short war they are mistaken. This war has been going on for over a year. and yet both sides are still gaining considerable amounts of villages. 63.2 SF/Plight to 63.95 C2 villages a day. Now by the stats posted, C2 gained 188 extra conquers 9 a day, which is not a bad stat to have. (Personally I wish that was me). But i still see a village as a village. And if each tribe are still gaining villages at essentially the same rate. Then in reality neither tribe is losing nor winning. That is my conclusion and I don't expect everyone to agree with it.

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm glad you don't expect that, because it's incorrect in my view to say neither tribe is losing or winning. SF's gains in villages mainly come from small barbs, which is not a feasible source of villages that they can continue to tap. That's why, in the past 3 days, they lost 90k points but gained 4 villages; they lost villages to c2, but gained small barbs. They will eventually begin losing more villages as their players quit from losing villages and/or get bored of nobling small barbs, and seeing as c2 is winning in the stats, and winning in terms of where they get villages from (most of Plight's come from large barbs such as those from Spank, or from tribes like ORC where they put their inactives), then it's fairly easy to see which tribe would logistically come out on top in the end. While c2 nobles a lot of large/small barbs, they also take the most enemy villages, which means they're the only ones who are taking food from a place that will run out a lot more slowly than inactives in another tribe, or from a source that will take a long time to produce real gains, such as small barbs. c2 is winning the race to the end of the world, and winning the war, according to the stats.

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm glad you don't expect that, because it's incorrect in my view to say neither tribe is losing or winning. SF's gains in villages mainly come from small barbs, which is not a feasible source of villages that they can continue to tap. That's why, in the past 3 days, they lost 90k points but gained 4 villages; they lost villages to c2, but gained small barbs. They will eventually begin losing more villages as their players quit from losing villages and/or get bored of nobling small barbs, and seeing as c2 is winning in the stats, and winning in terms of where they get villages from (most of Plight's come from large barbs such as those from Spank, or from tribes like ORC where they put their inactives), then it's fairly easy to see which tribe would logistically come out on top in the end. While c2 nobles a lot of large/small barbs, they also take the most enemy villages, which means they're the only ones who are taking food from a place that will run out a lot more slowly than inactives in another tribe, or from a source that will take a long time to produce real gains, such as small barbs. c2 is winning the race to the end of the world, and winning the war, according to the stats.

Out of curiosity then. If C2 only gained 188 villages from conquers? Where did the other 1,000 come from?? I'm not searching for the data as I believe it would be the same as every other tribe. Through barbs. Or nobling off your inactives in allied tribes (similar to Plight as you put it).

 

[DeletedUser78416]

I'm glad you don't expect that, because it's incorrect in my view to say neither tribe is losing or winning. SF's gains in villages mainly come from small barbs, which is not a feasible source of villages that they can continue to tap. That's why, in the past 3 days, they lost 90k points but gained 4 villages; they lost villages to c2, but gained small barbs. They will eventually begin losing more villages as their players quit from losing villages and/or get bored of nobling small barbs, and seeing as c2 is winning in the stats, and winning in terms of where they get villages from (most of Plight's come from large barbs such as those from Spank, or from tribes like ORC where they put their inactives), then it's fairly easy to see which tribe would logistically come out on top in the end. While c2 nobles a lot of large/small barbs, they also take the most enemy villages, which means they're the only ones who are taking food from a place that will run out a lot more slowly than inactives in another tribe, or from a source that will take a long time to produce real gains, such as small barbs. c2 is winning the race to the end of the world, and winning the war, according to the stats.

You do realize that the gray empire outnumbers any active village by a margin of almost 3:1

:icon_eek:

Any tribe collectively could noble 1000+ small barbs in a single day (if coordinated well).

And if they are all backline...

But I see what you are saying, however a multi faceted plan of attack or to defend will always trump that of the straight arrowed single face of attack or defense.

Sure, SF could lose 200 villages on the fronts in a 2 month period...but in that same time, if they wanted (read: if their inept leader would get off her lazy butt and do something other than sending stupid circulars nobody cares about, to rally the troops...) they could amass upwards of 1500-2000 barb conquers in that same time period, easily.

Sure, barb building is boring and takes a few months, depending on their size, but damn...do what you gotta do ya know.

 

[DeletedUser]

You do realize that the gray empire outnumbers any active village by a margin of almost 3:1

:icon_eek:

Any tribe collectively could noble 1000+ small barbs in a single day (if coordinated well).

And if they are all backline...

But I see what you are saying, however a multi faceted plan of attack or to defend will always trump that of the straight arrowed single face of attack or defense.

Sure, SF could lose 200 villages on the fronts in a 2 month period...but in that same time, if they wanted (read: if their inept leader would get off her lazy butt and do something other than sending stupid circulars nobody cares about, to rally the troops...) they could amass upwards of 1500-2000 barb conquers in that same time period, easily.

Sure, barb building is boring and takes a few months, depending on their size, but damn...do what you gotta do ya know.

Sir Gammy, you hit the nail on the head.

P.S. I haven't seen a circular in quite some time.

 

[DeletedUser]

You do realize that the gray empire outnumbers any active village by a margin of almost 3:1

:icon_eek:

Any tribe collectively could noble 1000+ small barbs in a single day (if coordinated well).

And if they are all backline...

But I see what you are saying, however a multi faceted plan of attack or to defend will always trump that of the straight arrowed single face of attack or defense.

Sure, SF could lose 200 villages on the fronts in a 2 month period...but in that same time, if they wanted (read: if their inept leader would get off her lazy butt and do something other than sending stupid circulars nobody cares about, to rally the troops...) they could amass upwards of 1500-2000 barb conquers in that same time period, easily.

Sure, barb building is boring and takes a few months, depending on their size, but damn...do what you gotta do ya know.

Sir Gammy, you hit the nail on the head.

P.S. I haven't seen a circular in quite some time.

You do realize neither of you deigned to read all of my points?

...or from a source that will take a long time to produce real gains, such as small barbs.

Here, let me bold the part in the original post:

[spoil]

I'm glad you don't expect that, because it's incorrect in my view to say neither tribe is losing or winning. SF's gains in villages mainly come from small barbs, which is not a feasible source of villages that they can continue to tap. That's why, in the past 3 days, they lost 90k points but gained 4 villages; they lost villages to c2, but gained small barbs. They will eventually begin losing more villages as their players quit from losing villages and/or get bored of nobling small barbs, and seeing as c2 is winning in the stats, and winning in terms of where they get villages from (most of Plight's come from large barbs such as those from Spank, or from tribes like ORC where they put their inactives), then it's fairly easy to see which tribe would logistically come out on top in the end. While c2 nobles a lot of large/small barbs, they also take the most enemy villages, which means they're the only ones who are taking food from a place that will run out a lot more slowly than inactives in another tribe, or from a source that will take a long time to produce real gains, such as small barbs. c2 is winning the race to the end of the world, and winning the war, according to the stats.

[/spoil]

How is it that I'm consistently accused of not reading posts, and then you guys group my points under the assumption that the first few sentences says it all?

The amount of time spent to build the barbs makes it infeasible for SF to survive under those circumstances. And the point I'm about to highlight again explains why:

[spoil]

I'm glad you don't expect that, because it's incorrect in my view to say neither tribe is losing or winning. SF's gains in villages mainly come from small barbs, which is not a feasible source of villages that they can continue to tap. That's why, in the past 3 days, they lost 90k points but gained 4 villages; they lost villages to c2, but gained small barbs. They will eventually begin losing more villages as their players quit from losing villages and/or get bored of nobling small barbs, and seeing as c2 is winning in the stats, and winning in terms of where they get villages from (most of Plight's come from large barbs such as those from Spank, or from tribes like ORC where they put their inactives), then it's fairly easy to see which tribe would logistically come out on top in the end. While c2 nobles a lot of large/small barbs, they also take the most enemy villages, which means they're the only ones who are taking food from a place that will run out a lot more slowly than inactives in another tribe, or from a source that will take a long time to produce real gains, such as small barbs. c2 is winning the race to the end of the world, and winning the war, according to the stats.

[/spoil]

In an ideal world, nobling small barbs could theoretically keep you alive forever. But this isn't an ideal world, as we all know. And nobling small barbs, even in a coordinated tribe effort, won't win wars.

 

[DeletedUser]

How is it that I'm consistently accused of not reading posts, and then you guys group my points under the assumption that the first few sentences says it all?

they also take the most enemy villages, which means they're the only ones who are taking food from a place that will run out a lot more slowly than inactives in another tribe, or from a source that will take a long time to produce real gains, such as small barbs.

To me that basically reads, there are plenty of food (war targets) out there which will be around much longer then "inactives in another tribe" or from barbs that won't be good for a long time.

I read what you wrote and I understand it. But it doesn't really say a point.

If you continue to take lets say 200 war conquers a month. And SF take 1000 barbs in the same month. Let's render them useless for two months to build up and fill the barracks. C2 take another 200 war conquers in month 2. SF keep building up there barbs.
At the end of month 3 (assumining it takes that long), C2 have conquered 600 villages, SF have 1000 barbs now fully built villages. Hence SF are up 400 villages in those 3 months.

Just show me where you defy the logic that under that circumstance if C2 didnt do the same thing, then SF would be gaining villages faster then C2.

That is all I'm pointing out, and Gammy as well.

 

[DeletedUser]

To me that basically reads, there are plenty of food (war targets) out there which will be around much longer then "inactives in another tribe" or from barbs that won't be good for a long time.

I read what you wrote and I understand it. But it doesn't really say a point.

If you continue to take lets say 200 war conquers a month. And SF take 1000 barbs in the same month. Let's render them useless for two months to build up and fill the barracks. C2 take another 200 war conquers in month 2. SF keep building up there barbs.
At the end of month 3 (assumining it takes that long), C2 have conquered 600 villages, SF have 1000 barbs now fully built villages. Hence SF are up 400 villages in those 3 months.

Just show me where you defy the logic that under that circumstance if C2 didnt do the same thing, then SF would be gaining villages faster then C2.

That is all I'm pointing out, and Gammy as well.

However, you neglect to mention that c2 is still outnobling SF in small barbs, inactives, and war conquers. You also neglect that players quit when they lose villages, and get bored nobling only small barbs, and quit for that reason too. You're obviously not understanding that, and I highlighted it in my last post just for that sake. The entire point of what I'm saying is that because of how the statistics are, with the proportions of small barbs, inactives, and war conquers, c2 is winning, and will win at this rate. Even Gammy would acknowledge that. Because of how few villages SF is really taking, and how long they'll take to build up, SF will grow much more slowly than c2, and continue to fall behind, have players quit, get bored, etc. For that reason, c2 is winning the war, as this is a war of attrition.

 

[DeletedUser]

However, you neglect to mention that c2 is still outnobling SF in small barbs, inactives, and war conquers. You also neglect that players quit when they lose villages, and get bored nobling only small barbs, and quit for that reason too. You're obviously not understanding that, and I highlighted it in my last post just for that sake.

Apologies, you edited before I finished posting.

C2 is outnobling SF in small barbs so that must mean they are going to quit when they get bored from nobling small barbs. And since they are doing more of that then SF, then C2 should be more likely to quit.

I don't agree but that is your logic.

The nobling of the barbs would essentially back those players up that are losing there villages and as such will give them more protection and more reason to stay in this game. I can't see how we would lose by doing this. (I'm sure you can).

Although I've heard no detail to say that any barbs are to be taken so I don't see particularly how all this discussion matters. Its just point I through out earlier to show that essentially neither tribe are going backwards in size. Both are still growing.

 

[DeletedUser]

Apologies, you edited before I finished posting.

I don't see a single "edit" on any of my posts at the bottom or otherwise (where it usually shows when you edit a post). Perhaps you just didn't read it, and it magically appeared for you now that you read it :lol:?

C2 is outnobling SF in small barbs so that must mean they are going to quit when they get bored from nobling small barbs. And since they are doing more of that then SF, then C2 should be more likely to quit.

I don't agree but that is your logic.

Do you ever read? I said the proportions would make SF bored. Because c2 also takes war conquers, they won't get bored, but will continue to outgrow SF and cause their players to quit.

The nobling of the barbs would essentially back those players up that are losing there villages and as such will give them more protection and more reason to stay in this game. I can't see how we would lose by doing this. (I'm sure you can).

History has shown us that it doesn't work. Good in theory, fails in reality. You can go through any world, no tribe that has done this has ever survived for long. Here, let me give you a little list of those I'm aware of:

Or.D in W6. See them around? No? That's because they lost and merged their enemies to form HD.
W10 DDB. See them around? No? That's because they lost to CTRL, who fell apart after feeling like the world was too boring and they'd practically won it already.
W15 ~N~W~ or something like that. Huge family, tried it out, their last branch alive is ~WaR~ or something, and they're not dominating.
W16 ORC Yeah, we tried it in ORC, do you see us around? No? We died of what, take a guess? Inactivity and unskilled players. Nobling those small barbs, as dopeas wanted us to, didn't get us very far, did it?
W24 MANIC See them around? They were good, then they lost due to...inactivity! Wow, starting to see a pattern?

The list goes on and on. You'll never find a tribe that can employ the strategy. You have to mix war conquers with a very large amount of small barbs to succeed in that strategy, and SF is not only failing to noble much (200 village gain is tiny compared to c2 and Plight), but they don't have many war conquers and not much activity either.

Although I've heard no detail to say that any barbs are to be taken so I don't see particularly how all this discussion matters. Its just point I through out earlier to show that essentially neither tribe are going backwards in size. Both are still growing.

Still growing doesn't mean that one isn't winning, which is what I said.

 

[DeletedUser]

Do you ever feel that we should just open a Skype chat and just chat, because its mostly just us two in here anyways.

Post #926 at 01:14. Originally posted at 01:11. I posted at 01:22. Correct it usually takes me 10 minutes to reply. I'm not refreshing my page every minute to check if you have edited before I send my final post in. And as you re iterated the point. I answered it. What more do you want?

No where does it say "proportions" in your posts, please show where you believe you applied it but didn't say it. I can read as long as it is not only in your mind.

I don't care if other tribes have failed taking small barbs. Must of done it wrong. If something hasn't worked in the past, doenst mean it can't work in the future. How do you think Genghis Khan and Julius Ceasar became greats. Because they did things that noone else could or had done in the past sucessfully.

And yet still, you want to argue about us doing this when there is no sign of this at all. You can say C2 are winning, I don't mind, I can't back myself up with facts that show you losing. I can see stats of SF taking losses, but not descending in size. But frankly, I can't also prove that in the future you will have won. It appears at this current stage that the probablity of that is much much more likely then any other warring tribe winning. But with so many variables who could honestly say that its definite.

Village points can grow, barbs can always be taken. Players can change sides, Players can quit/die/go inactive, tribes can disband, Enemies could become allies.

 

[DeletedUser]

Do you ever feel that we should just open a Skype chat and just chat, because its mostly just us two in here anyways.

Every once and a while :icon_wink:.

Post #926 at 01:14. Originally posted at 01:11. I posted at 01:22. Correct it usually takes me 10 minutes to reply. I'm not refreshing my page every minute to check if you have edited before I send my final post in. And as you re iterated the point. I answered it. What more do you want?

Then you were trying to double-post, but I didn't edit any of my posts.

No where does it say "proportions" in your posts, please show where you believe you applied it but didn't say it. I can read as long as it is not only in your mind.

[spoil]

However, you neglect to mention that c2 is still outnobling SF in small barbs, inactives, and war conquers. You also neglect that players quit when they lose villages, and get bored nobling only small barbs, and quit for that reason too. You're obviously not understanding that, and I highlighted it in my last post just for that sake. The entire point of what I'm saying is that because of how the statistics are, with the proportions of small barbs, inactives, and war conquers, c2 is winning, and will win at this rate. Even Gammy would acknowledge that. Because of how few villages SF is really taking, and how long they'll take to build up, SF will grow much more slowly than c2, and continue to fall behind, have players quit, get bored, etc. For that reason, c2 is winning the war, as this is a war of attrition.

[/spoil]

I bolded it just for you. You just lost, terribly my friend. You didn't read it, it isn't only in my mind, and you should learn to read before saying I didn't say something.

I don't care if other tribes have failed taking small barbs. Must of done it wrong. If something hasn't worked in the past, doenst mean it can't work in the future. How do you think Genghis Khan and Julius Ceasar became greats. Because they did things that noone else could or had done in the past sucessfully.

Done it wrong because it only works in an ideal world. And conveniently, one of the people you talk about was also assassinated. Go figure :icon_surprised:. But if you think SF, the tribe that has lost this war from the beginning, who is allied with the tribe that is also losing this war, that gained the least villages of any of the top 3 tribes by a very large margin, can be the next Genghis Khan and do something the tribes prior could not, be my guest. Go ahead, try. It'll only make the war easier for c2 :icon_wink:.

And yet still, you want to argue about us doing this when there is no sign of this at all. You can say C2 are winning, I don't mind, I can't back myself up with facts that show you losing. I can see stats of SF taking losses, but not descending in size. But frankly, I can't also prove that in the future you will have won. It appears at this current stage that the probablity of that is much much more likely then any other warring tribe winning. But with so many variables who could honestly say that its definite.

I didn't say c2 won, or will win. I said they are winning. They are. The stats are in favor of c2, at the current patterns and rates, c2 will win, but that's not definite. I said they are winning, you say they aren't, and then say that it's not definite. Ok, it's not definite, but nowhere did I say it was definite. I said they are winning, not that they would win or would always be winning. Again with the reading problems.

Village points can grow, barbs can always be taken. Players can change sides, Players can quit/die/go inactive, tribes can disband, Enemies could become allies.

And again, I never acknowledged that any of those things wouldn't happen. But the likelihood of it happening at this rate shows SF will lose the war, and that c2 is winning based on those statistics, war statistics, etc...that's what I said, and you're attempting to make it out like I said c2 will win the war, as opposed to saying they are winning.

 

[DeletedUser]

Then you were trying to double-post, but I didn't edit any of my posts.

I responded to post 926. But its not important. I still answered your question. Get over it.

I bolded it just for you. You just lost, terribly my friend. You didn't read it, it isn't only in my mind, and you should learn to read before saying I didn't say something.

My mistake. I obviously missed the 1 word in a thousand that you throw all your emphasis on. I'll probably do it again. So proportinally C2 are winning because there War conquers : Barb : Internal is the best? Cool. SF are still gaining villages. Oh and guess what, so is plight, and combined, at the same speed as C2. Maybe I could call Sunny villages into play and then we would be gaining more villages then C2. Therefore we are winning here, and C2 are not winning, they are losing. It is only 1 area so don't get too wound up. Also depends on who claims the villages of MAD and BANG! and BNH and whoever else is still out there. Who cares if you are taking conquers if your not nobling as many villages.

If it takes my head to conquer the world I dont mind being assasinated for the good of the tribe.

Again, C2 may be winning in a number of areas. They have not won, nor do I conclude that they will win. Current statistics would show that C2 are the most likely to be eventual winners. But I still cannot see them winning until The villages of all there enemies starts to decline. The war is getting bigger not smaller.

 

[DeletedUser]

i cant be asked to read all of that

 

[DeletedUser]

I responded to post 926. But its not important. I still answered your question. Get over it.



My mistake. I obviously missed the 1 word in a thousand that you throw all your emphasis on. I'll probably do it again. So proportinally C2 are winning because there War conquers : Barb : Internal is the best? Cool. SF are still gaining villages. Oh and guess what, so is plight, and combined, at the same speed as C2. Maybe I could call Sunny villages into play and then we would be gaining more villages then C2. Therefore we are winning here, and C2 are not winning, they are losing. It is only 1 area so don't get too wound up. Also depends on who claims the villages of MAD and BANG! and BNH and whoever else is still out there. Who cares if you are taking conquers if your not nobling as many villages.

You just went off on such a tangent. I don't understand your point. In this war, of which c2, SF, and Plight are participants, SF are clearly losing it and c2 are clearly winning it. c2 is growing, not having players go inactive nearly as often as either of their enemies, taking more enemy villages, and still managing to outgrow both tribes who are bigger than c2 when combined. All of that about Sunny and MAD and BANG! holds no relevance when we consider that c2 is still growing faster than SF is by far, and Plight as well. The war against SF and Plight is being won when we consider growth. If you're attempting to say Sunny is on SF's side, then you may want to do your checking, because they only give SF and Plight a slight lead in village growth exchange for adding 700 villages to the total, which would be the equivalent of saying Gammy is on c2's side, for all that matters. And really, it doesn't.

If it takes my head to conquer the world I dont mind being assasinated for the good of the tribe.

Again, C2 may be winning in a number of areas. They have not won, nor do I conclude that they will win. Current statistics would show that C2 are the most likely to be eventual winners. But I still cannot see them winning until The villages of all there enemies starts to decline. The war is getting bigger not smaller.

Ok, but again, you said at the start:

Then in reality neither tribe is losing nor winning. That is my conclusion and I don't expect everyone to agree with it.

And then just now you said:

Again, C2 may be winning in a number of areas.

c2 = winning = you contradicting yourself and agreeing with me. It's not hard to follow, right?

 

[DeletedUser]

c2 = winning in a number of areas does not equal c2 are winning. Theres no contradiction.

 

[DeletedUser]

How not? If they are winning in all areas visible and invisible, then they are winning. Unless you have an area (besides losing) where they aren't winning?

But hey, if you want to make it into some kind of semantics argument, feel free. I'd love to brush up on my semantics with you. But please, when you start, don't forget to answer points. Because one little word, like proportions, could ruin you :icon_wink:.

And as for the proportions part that I had forgotten to respond to, I said it numerous times in different forms, such as "the mix of villages nobled", etc. You just didn't read, and that's alright with me. Just admit it .

 

[DeletedUser]

In a game of soccer, you could have the most possession, most free kicks, most players left on the field, most shots at goal most tackles, and most basically any other statistic they cover in a match. If you havent scored a goal your not winning. As such Plight and SF are still growing in villages at the same speed as C2. So all the other stats are rubbish. That is simply how you can be classed as not winning.

Sounds pretty simple doesnt it.

 

[DeletedUser]

Let me point out a few flaws you forgot to mention:

-The other team (SF) is getting fatigued much faster than ours, in addition to our team (c2) being more skilled.
-There is no 90 minute time limit, as the game goes on forever.
-The other team (SF) is continually losing players.
-Our team (c2) has scored numerous goals, each time a player quits due to attacks (or RL, as you like to call it :icon_rolleyes, or a player loses a lot of villages and is nobled out, a goal is placed.
-The game goes on until one team gives up, just like in TW.

Well, is it safe to say c2 is winning? I'd say so. And all of those analogies have their basis in the game :icon_wink:.

And let's not forget that RL =/= a game, so all of this is pointless dribble unless you can prove to me in one way how a game that goes on until 1 team gives up (and then some) is anything like a game with time constraints, how the fact that there are two teams against c2 can be tied into soccer/football, etc.

 

[DeletedUser]

C²: +1,279 villages
Plight and SF combined: +1,264 villages

Close game to me.