Declaration of war!

[DeletedUser92671]

fred,
on tanti,

my you enlighten me as to why, you sent, deep into the heart of K05, a single noble, 240 hours out, 80 hours behind 2 nukes?
ive been waiting all week to see you add 3 more nobles and some more nukes, but your first nuke hit this morning, killed a total of 100 or so spears, and 200 or so swords...
your second nuke will hit in an hour, and your lonely noble in 80 hours...?

what was the point?
you achieved nothing... lol


Reece

 

[DeletedUser]

As I remember it, BoS lost most of its momentum when kflommer left and then obviously with Sonny's passing away Bos were bereft of leaders and have never recovered. But the turning point was definitely kflommers departure imo.

Which time?

Sonny's passing hurt but the amount of inactives combined with the amount of k's we covered really screwed us. If we were more compact like titans it would not have been much of an issue, but when you spread out of 8 or 9 ks and people start disappearing it is harder to protect. Then tachy decided to be a 'tard which lead to the k8 fiasco and here we are. Still got a long ways to go fellas.

beowned didn't we already rim you?

 

[DeletedUser]

Well obviously i didnt really know what was happening in the brotherhood and didnt know who was inactive and who wasnt. I was just stating what was appearing to be happening from my side of the fence

 

[DeletedUser45512]

fred,
on tanti,

my you enlighten me as to why, you sent, deep into the heart of K05, a single noble, 240 hours out, 80 hours behind 2 nukes?
ive been waiting all week to see you add 3 more nobles and some more nukes, but your first nuke hit this morning, killed a total of 100 or so spears, and 200 or so swords...
your second nuke will hit in an hour, and your lonely noble in 80 hours...?

what was the point?
you achieved nothing... lol


Reece

no point and why dont you wait until they have all hit. Also i got your attention maybe i thought you might return the love but o well i will just have to settle for grussy i suppose

 

[DeletedUser]

Honestly reece for someone that got rimmed and then came back you seem to talk a lot. Just sayin

 

[DeletedUser33191]

LOL - I just picked up on this thread after a long break from reading here, and only read the last couple pages, but it seems we have ourselves a new BH Court Jester, full of delusion - I just love 'em )

I know many front line players left and that BH claim that is their problem, but please ask yourselves 'why' they left - most often, you'll find the 'leavers' have high ODD - and they don't get this for no reason. The fact is, they were nuked out of the game.

To claim that BH are 'letting' np take the 'inactives' at the front - you have NO choice; they were made inactive by being outnuked with little BH support, and now they are gone, there is no-one to play them... of course they are inactives being eaten at the front.

For those further back, just waiting to 'pounce' on us as we move forward, I applaud your hastening of our victory. You are simply using the inactives as your meatshield, deluding yourselves that in the interim you are gaining strength in the rear - really!

Putting players from W18 into said dead accts is a good idea - it may delay our advance??

Also, I do remember when the war first started, and we owned about 1/3 of K35, no K36, no K37, no K45, no K46, no K47 and of course, no K8, and we were behind TITANS and not really sharing much of a front apart from K35/45, that the BH's answer to us, was "just you wait till you move forward and meet the actives and get a proper front with us, then you'll suffer" - sounds familiar - "keep wading through our frontlines and we'll meet you later". Just how far are we supposed to move through your 'inactives' (ironic, they are only inactive from np nukes in many cases) before we meet your 'real' and 'active' players? Surely, thesse 'actives' should be who we are warring all the time as they shoudl be at the front making war noblings, rather than hiding in the rear? There are of course, exceptions - Lilith for example has large clusters in the rear, but also has moved to the front - commendable. As a leader, try and inspire others to do so to make things more interesting, or simply give up - you can't win on your own.

The np fronts are full of actives - how else do we push forward - the tide is coming in, and they are full of bristling actives. King Canute couldn't stop that, and BH will find the same is true.

As for fred's ramblings - please keep them up - I may even start finding time to pop on here and have a laugh )

 

[DeletedUser92671]

Honestly reece for someone that got rimmed and then came back you seem to talk a lot. Just sayin

check your facts, i never got rimmed by you,
HORDES rimmed me over 2 years ago in K59, i came to K06, got larger, joined TITANs, quit the world 1 month into the war for college,
therefore, you simply helped TITANS noble an inactive account...

i came back a year into the war, because college was again finished for summer,

so tell me again, at what point did you ever rim me?

just for the record, from declaration date, to point of quiting, stats on heroreece are,

Heroreece - 24
BoS/BoK - 6

stats since coming back on bryan are,

bryan254 - 77
BoS/BoK - 3

(2 of those three were re-takes that you later lost again to me regardless)


'just sayin'

 

[DeletedUser]

they were made inactive by being outnuked with little BH support, and now they are gone, there is no-one to play them... of course they are inactives being eaten at the front.

Dave...*sigh*, you never learn? After so much tribes fallen in our wars (but against RL), you should have learnt the lesson!

We might be the Four Horsemen of RL, but it is always the mighty RL finally reaping their accounts.

It's normal.


MM

 

[DeletedUser33191]

Of course, MM, sorry... I forgot about RL that only takes our (allies) enemies accounts, but rarely our own. it's a bizarre twist of fate, that if you started this world in the west, you are more likely to have a stable 'reality', whereas our unfortunate TW brethren who started in the east of this world were doomed to have to quit TW due to a less than stable real life. It almost made the outcome of this world a given by the 'random' placements of players at W17 conception.

I am only glad I started in K24, so qualify as 'western' for a stable real life! It is close - a shuffle to the right and my personal circumstances could have taken a turn for the worse!

 

[DeletedUser]

It's not RL that change. It's TW-life that change. The strategy you mention yourself dj, "nuked out", only got one purpose, to make people quit out of boredom. It's really effective, I give you that. Not fun but effective. It made me leave, I can confess that. Spending weeks to rebuild villages is not really what I call fun.
I do agree thou, it's funny to see how much people who suddenly got "RL-issues" and need to quit when the attacks have been landing a few weeks.

 

[DeletedUser]

It's not RL that change. It's TW-life that change. The strategy you mention yourself dj, "nuked out", only got one purpose, to make people quit out of boredom. It's really effective, I give you that. Not fun but effective. It made me leave, I can confess that. Spending weeks to rebuild villages is not really what I call fun.

Well, give me a "strategy" that is effective and fun to the losing party as well. Effectively wiping someone out is never fun for the one getting wiped out. Spending weeks to rebuild is part of any wargame, whether it is rebuilding armies, HQs, logistics or morale.

Surprisingly, the same "nuking out" tactics didn't work on Western players (it's pretty boring now, but let me remind you to the Corridor or MOJO/BH focused targets). Why?

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm not saying it's fun to lose in any way. But this simple and booring strategy makes people quit. I don't want people to quit. I used to love the op: s when nukes and nobles was the way to do it. When I first started it was never the idea to make people quit and then noble the villages. At least not what I remember. In my opinion this strategy is used when you are not good enough to defeat someone. "We can't defeat this tribe/person, let us nuke him out of the game instead". Correct me if I'm wrong but were there even catapults in the early worlds?

I don't even remember we tried that strategy in the "corridor". Might have been after I left?

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm not saying it's fun to lose in any way. But this simple and booring strategy makes people quit. I don't want people to quit. I used to love the op: s when nukes and nobles was the way to do it. When I first started it was never the idea to make people quit and then noble the villages. At least not what I remember. In my opinion this strategy is used when you are not good enough to defeat someone. "We can't defeat this tribe/person, let us nuke him out of the game instead". Correct me if I'm wrong but were there even catapults in the early worlds?

I don't even remember we tried that strategy in the "corridor". Might have been after I left?

Consider yourself corrected - there were catapults on early worlds and were specifically used to make attrition damage. That's their sole purpose, after all. Damaging villages and therefore morale. It's much older than even archers, simplified smithies or the coin system.

As for mass nuking being a boring tactic, actually, I disagree. It's only boring if you're on the receiving end and you don't have a chance of protecting yourself. However, receiving artillery fire is part of a war game. Actually, it's been part of any real war as well, and has been used for pretty much the same ultimate reasons. Add that most of the artillery runs are only announcing a close range dogfight or nobling wave. Most tribes are not using artillery fire as a sole, ultimate weapon (actually, using it on such a way - simply as a morale bash - would be highly inefficient against an organized & high morale opponent). It is just some of the targets don't even wait the close range fights and/or nobles to arrive and giving up right in the first phase. Those targets are in fact rather suffering from their own tribe, not the attacks.

Let me repeat: give me an efficient strategy which the target is enjoying while being removed. You won't find one.

Second, tell me why western players are way less affected by the very same strategy? We've had several players being targeted by mass nuking, some followed by close range dogfights and noble trains - yet we are not losing players to this strategy.

I'm not sure when did you exactly leave, but Wisdom & Eturg were trying this tactics on various Corridor players for months; the most famous is probably Regent's case, who has suffered over 3000 incomings in a single week, from which 1050+ were real nukes. He gathered over 70 mio. ODD from this single run, and received close range attacks and nobling attempts from local hostiles. Yet he has lost no villages and suffered only an ~1000 points overall damage. He was fully flanked by Wisdom and EturgK from both West, East, with hostile clusters in his mainland. You can probably also remember Inty's threats (quite a few months ago) that he will unleash the biggest mass nuking attempt on 13th to date unless they give up- and despite full focus, that once again, failed. But I could also use Legion's or mithra's case on K55 (multiple MOJO-BH ops to mass nuke our K55 players). Oddly enough, these mass nuking ops have barely succeded on western targets. Why?

 

[DeletedUser]

Thanks for the correction, then I might just have been lucky to not see this kind of operations. My mainworlds have been w15 and w17. In w15 this strategy is used by some tribes now days but not that much in the beginning.

I understand completely why the strategy is used and as I said earlier it's effective. But yet again I don't like it as it got nothing to do with skill or strategic thinking. Things that I used to love about this game. The only thing impressive I saw while I was the target of np was how dj, as a good leader, made 40 people do their part in this operation. I didn't lose any single villa either but yet again that was not the purpose.

I don't understand what you want me to answer to your first question. Of course noone enjoy being removed in any way. But if I was about to be removed I would for sure be happy to defend against the attackers. It's not that hard to take out a player without to make him quit. Get a stronghold and you can noble him shortrange.

I believe I left w17 in the beginning of January this year. I can't say why people are less affected of this strategy on the western side. You should know, as you have been here a long time, there are a lot of circumstances that need to be considered. I don't know those circumstances. Probably they didn't keep attacking for months? Maybe they hit a small area that is easy to stack? One weak and only 3000 incomings is easy. Maybe there were a huge amount of "safe" players that could stack the front? So on...

Anyway. What I wanted to say with my first post was that I agree that to blame "sudden rl issues" is wrong. It's the nature of the game that change and you just don't want to spend the time you need on this game when it's not fun any longer. So if you as a tribe use this strategy it's not that strange that you hit abandon accounts.

 

[DeletedUser]

I understand completely why the strategy is used and as I said earlier it's effective. But yet again I don't like it as it got nothing to do with skill or strategic thinking.

That's what my questions were trying to cover. These attacks have a lot to do with both skills and strategic thinking.

First, long range bombardment is usually a strategic step, you couldn't even put it into any other logical group. It is starting, finishing or supporting other operations, and it is also taking some time to get it organized. You need active and persistent players to make a long range bombardment effective, but shouldn't use up too much resources. You should organize other steps to make a whole operation tree and players should be able to cooperate and do their part in the several steps. You should plan for weeks or months in advance when your there is long range bombardment in your repertoir. If it doesn't require strategic thinking and commitment from both the leaders and players then nothing would.

Skills, on the other hand can usually easily minimize damages on the receiving end, if the target won't start panicking and running away. If you can spot fakes, move support around, you can survive a bombardment with minimal support and minimal losses. Skills, cold head, and a proper, cooperative mindset are the biggest enemies of any mass attacks.

Your tips about how western players are minimizing losses show the typical eastern mentality. The Corridor has been under constant fire for 10 months. There are still concentrated long range nuking attempts on players, so they did keep attacking for month. They didn't hit a small area, but usually several hundred/thousands villages at once. There were no huge amount of safe players since most of the times we've had the longest frontline on the server, before MOJO collapsed. The difference isn't something you'll find in the external circumstances but easterners have never actually bothered to find it elsewhere.

I think that the fact you don't like strategical bombarding coming from that you think it made you quit, but it was rather your tribe which did the work. Against a well organized, helpful tribe, mass bombardment is simply not working, because there are war sitters and locals to help - you don't even need much stacking. It is only working against individuals, and not a united tribe. Actually, that's the only circumstance being vastly different on the two sides and that's why you can't really blame bombardment for your quitting. Easily surviving it would have been trivial if the internal circumstances are granted in your tribe.

 

[DeletedUser]

First, long range bombardment is usually a strategic step

There were, at the time I was playing, no other steps. Just long range bombardments. A monkey can be learned to do that. But you are right, you need commitment from the members, to log in a few minutes every day for a long time.

Skills, on the other hand can usually easily minimize damages on the receiving end, if the target won't start panicking and running away. If you can spot fakes, move support around, you can survive a bombardment with minimal support and minimal losses. Skills, cold head, and a proper, cooperative mindset are the biggest enemies of any mass attacks.

THIS, I'm afraid, show only you either don't know what you are talking about, or you are just talking about some kind of bombardment on a very small size. Sure is we are at least not talking about the same thing. If you got incomings to all your villages in all your k: s during weeks or months, and you got a few hundred villages on the front line, then it's not possible to defend all your villages in your back k: s, maybe not even all the villages close to the front either. To avoid misunderstandings we are not talking about a small account that can easily be stacked. The chances that all your tribemates can send all their def as support are normally not very big.
When it comes to skill we don't got the same opinion, sorry. To defend against this kind of op: s you rather need time and the will to spend all your free time in front of your computer screen. When the nobles start coming you need some skill.....

As I said before I don't know the circumstances in the "corridor" so I can't say much about this. But if the reality in those cases are what you are saying, I really doubt they are, then the attackers must be really bad, even thou you can teach monkey to do the job ,or the guys under attack got a huge patience.

I think that the fact you don't like strategical bombarding coming from that you think it made you quit, but it was rather your tribe which did the work. Against a well organized, helpful tribe, mass bombardment is simply not working, because there are war sitters and locals to help - you don't even need much stacking. It is only working against individuals, and not a united tribe. Actually, that's the only circumstance being vastly different on the two sides and that's why you can't really blame bombardment for your quitting. Easily surviving it would have been trivial if the internal circumstances are granted in your tribe.

Well, I quit after the end of the bombardment. I pretty much rebuilt everything and then handled the account over and quit. But true is I left cos the game turned into something I didn't enjoy. And the amount of time I spent online during those months was far more then what I wanted to spend. And please don't again blame the eastern for not stacking 900 villages or me for not moving troops in some kind of "magical" way during months, nights and days. I received a lot of support and I got help with sitting, but most I tried to handle my self. And yet again the last quote show we are not talking about the same scenario.

This is my last post in this matter as it's not what the thread is about. I know your tribe is good so you don't need to prove that to me. And true is this bombardment don't necessarily make the target quit. But noone should blame the ones who do quit duo to boredom.

 

[DeletedUser]

Hey,

There were, at the time I was playing, no other steps. Just long range bombardments. A monkey can be learned to do that. But you are right, you need commitment from the members, to log in a few minutes every day for a long time.

THIS, I'm afraid, show only you either don't know what you are talking about, or you are just talking about some kind of bombardment on a very small size. Sure is we are at least not talking about the same thing.

We are talking about the same thing, you're just unable to understand that your viewpoint might be... narrowed down.

Another option, of course that I don't know what I'm talking about. In this case, the fact we didn't lose the Corridor, didn't broke under BH-MOJO bombardments and that we are having pretty good ODA and ODD scores (playing on both sides of the fence in regards of long range bombarding) are all just a matter of good luck - something the westerners seem to have anyway since it's impossible that they are simply doing things better. In which case, even a monkey could win a war and as such, playing at all or speaking about skills is completely pointless.

If you got incomings to all your villages in all your k: s during weeks or months, and you got a few hundred villages on the front line, then it's not possible to defend all your villages in your back k: s, maybe not even all the villages close to the front either. To avoid misunderstandings we are not talking about a small account that can easily be stacked.

Withstanding a long range bombardment is not equal to protecting all villages during the whole bombardment, that's actually the worst thing to do (speaking about "skills", it's "noobish"). In fact, it seems your misunderstanding is straightly coming from the fact you are having misconceptions about how to defend against real mass nukings. Sure, with your conception it might sound like impossible that we are speaking about the same amount of attacks.

The chances that all your tribemates can send all their def as support are normally not very big.

Misconception. I never said that you need much of their defense. It's always a last resort.

When it comes to skill we don't got the same opinion, sorry. To defend against this kind of op: s you rather need time and the will to spend all your free time in front of your computer screen. When the nobles start coming you need some skill.....

In fact I was using the word skill to describe the amount of free time and some basic understanding of the game aspects. Honestly, the game itself doesn't require much skills at all. Spotting fakes is rather coming from experience (if you were labelling attacks a few thousand times it's easy to get used to specific patterns - but it's rather learnt on a trial and error way than by actually improving some mystical skills to feel what is coming). Then, spiking villages or sniping nobles is once again, rather based on some tactical decisions (such as making it sure that you'll have some units close by to snipe or spike with) and being available at the relevant time. It's not skill. In fact, the most crucial part is always the time factor.

As I said before I don't know the circumstances in the "corridor" so I can't say much about this. But if the reality in those cases are what you are saying, I really doubt they are, then the attackers must be really bad, even thou you can teach monkey to do the job ,or the guys under attack got a huge patience.

Let me repeat: it's not the external circumstances being different (ie. "bad attackers". In fact Wisdom was providing better attackers during our war than even Storm, not to mention BH or MOJO players). It's the internal circumstances being different. You're also right about something - I think the Corridor was having a harder time than anyone in BH simply due to their location and the concentrated efforts of three hostile tribes all being next to them, and with Corridor players having 90-95% of their villages on the direct frontlines (wouldn't be rocket science to check some older maps to compare them to your case).

And please don't again blame the eastern for not stacking 900 villages or me for not moving troops in some kind of "magical" way during months, nights and days. I received a lot of support and I got help with sitting, but most I tried to handle my self. And yet again the last quote show we are not talking about the same scenario.

I never told they should stack 900 villages;once again, that's the worst thing to do. If I'm to blame anything, then I blame your and their incompentence in finding out how to withstand such attacks and then having enough cooperation to accomplish that. The pretty fact that based on ODD increases, a lot of others were receiving way worse attacks than you, and they ended up not losing anything - most importantly, not even their morale to the point they would quit. I was asking "why", hoping you might think it over but you're stuck to your point that it should be some magical external circumstances which made westerners more "resistant" to bombarding, instead of giving it a chance that you might have just had a really bad strategy against these attacks, and be realising and changing that strategy in time, you could have saved a couple players.

This is my last post in this matter as it's not what the thread is about. I know your tribe is good so you don't need to prove that to me.

Well, I doubt anyone would have an issue with us discussing a topic which is relevant to the world war on a detail which is much more than any other topic was receiving for months, but if they are, they can always just move this discussion to a "war tactics" or "mass nuking" topic. Also, I really was trying not to simply say "we are better" but simply talking about the topic, mentioning the reasons of why we are better, risking that you (or a still active hostile) might indeed realize what you should do to make mass bombarding way less effective against your ranks.

With such a bull-headed approach though, all is secured though. The lucky westerners will remain magically resistant against this "boring tactic" but the easterners, though still constantly trying, won't be able to ever use the very same tactic effectively, despite "it could be made by a group of monkeys" (seems like a paradox). The differences should be due to external reasons, otherwise the easterner quitters couldn't blame the situation instead of the fact they were choosing a bad strategy and thus getting killed off (either by reducing their morale or actually removing them from the field).

 

[DeletedUser]

You are losing track now. I will make another wall of text as well. Most of what you are saying is not only very naive, it's wrong as well.

Another option, of course that I don't know what I'm talking about. In this case, the fact we didn't lose the Corridor, didn't broke under BH-MOJO bombardments and that we are having pretty good ODA and ODD scores (playing on both sides of the fence in regards of long range bombarding) are all just a matter of good luck - something the westerners seem to have anyway since it's impossible that they are simply doing things better. In which case, even a monkey could win a war and as such, playing at all or speaking about skills is completely pointless.

Most people should know by now ODA doesn't need to say much about how skilled you are, ODA the same. I have never said the western are not better then the eastern. We are talking about a specific strategy, something you seem to forget all the time. Talking about skill is most of the time pointless as it's more often a matter of activity....and I don't count that as skill.

Withstanding a long range bombardment is not equal to protecting all villages during the whole bombardment, that's actually the worst thing to do (speaking about "skills", it's "noobish"). In fact, it seems your misunderstanding is straightly coming from the fact you are having misconceptions about how to defend against real mass nukings. Sure, with your conception it might sound like impossible that we are speaking about the same amount of attacks.

With all respect, and it might sound like I'm boasting, but I don't think many people on those servers can teach me anything when it comes to defending. You, on the other hand, are talking about to track fakes, move troops around.
Let us see:

Skills, on the other hand can usually easily minimize damages on the receiving end, if the target won't start panicking and running away. If you can spot fakes, move support around, you can survive a bombardment with minimal support and minimal losses. Skills, cold head, and a proper, cooperative mindset are the biggest enemies of any mass attacks.

I mean...come on MM. You have been around enough to see how far you are from the reality. As said earlier, you don't know what you are talking about or you are talking about a small scale operation. If you indeed are talking about the same thing, then you should hope you never get under such attack because your words will come back biting your ass.

I never said that you need much of their defense. It's always a last resort.

Agree. But yet again I'm right. Your next couple of weeks or months will consist of rebuilding villages. If I'll try to get us back to my first point from my first post. Dodging, rebuilding and moving troops will be so intensive and boring so people rather quit then keep that kind of play. The character of the game change, not the RL.
If that's what you want with the nuke bombardment then you win and I say congrats. But being proud of how "we nuked them out" is for me...unworthy, can't find a better word for that.

Let me repeat: it's not the external circumstances being different (ie. "bad attackers". In fact Wisdom was providing better attackers during our war than even Storm, not to mention BH or MOJO players). It's the internal circumstances being different. You're also right about something - I think the Corridor was having a harder time than anyone in BH simply due to their location and the concentrated efforts of three hostile tribes all being next to them, and with Corridor players having 90-95% of their villages on the direct frontlines (wouldn't be rocket science to check some older maps to compare them to your case).

Again I don't know if the circumstances in this case. There is no way all circumstances are the same...two different operations so they just were not. They might have been better or worse, I don't know and it doesn't matter to prove my point. I think you are misunderstanding why I'm having this conversation. It's not to explain why we lost and to claim the eastern side isn't good. I'm talking about a very boring strategy that I refuse to give any respect. As I have said I'm playing this game for fun. Trying to make people quit is not fun to me, and I understand why they do quit after weeks with this strategy against them.

I never told they should stack 900 villages;once again, that's the worst thing to do. If I'm to blame anything, then I blame your and their incompentence in finding out how to withstand such attacks and then having enough cooperation to accomplish that. The pretty fact that based on ODD increases, a lot of others were receiving way worse attacks than you, and they ended up not losing anything - most importantly, not even their morale to the point they would quit. I was asking "why", hoping you might think it over but you're stuck to your point that it should be some magical external circumstances which made westerners more "resistant" to bombarding, instead of giving it a chance that you might have just had a really bad strategy against these attacks, and be realising and changing that strategy in time, you could have saved a couple players.

So please explain it to me. I know by now reading your posts and reading between the lines that you are not able to teach anyone how to defend, and more important to withstand this kind of strategy. I mean, you even fail to understand why external factors got a lot to do with how effective this strategy can be.

 

[DeletedUser]

You are losing track now. I will make another wall of text as well. Most of what you are saying is not only very naive, it's wrong as well.

Yeah, I admit, I'm naive and wrong on this subject. That's why I am, along with my bombarded members are still here, and you were quitting.

Talking about skill is most of the time pointless as it's more often a matter of activity....and I don't count that as skill.

Not if I wouldn't enjoy if you're first trying to prove how wrong I'm then simply repeating my lines using a slightly different wording, but... well, it's not making you get a point.

With all respect, and it might sound like I'm boasting, but I don't think many people on those servers can teach me anything when it comes to defending.

You're free to think as such. With respect, I'm thinking otherwise. In fact, most of those who are still playing could teach you a couple things (and speaking about defending, protecting battle morale should be also taken into account).

As said earlier, you don't know what you are talking about or you are talking about a small scale operation. If you indeed are talking about the same thing, then you should hope you never get under such attack because your words will come back biting your ass.

It is getting totally pointless around this point. You told you don't have a clue about what I'm talking about, what I'm comparing your situation to, yet you're sure that I'm wrong about comparing these things to yours (once again, without you actually knowing the compared situations at all). You are trying to sell it as a fact based on your feelings that it shouldn't be that simple that they didn't suffer the same morale damage and didn't quit, so it should be the external circumstances being different, because nobody else would be able to survive that what was destroying your fun and made you quit. It's a solid, heavily supported statement, indeed.

Your next couple of weeks or months will consist of rebuilding villages. If I'll try to get us back to my first point from my first post. Dodging, rebuilding and moving troops will be so intensive and boring so people rather quit then keep that kind of play. The character of the game change, not the RL.

First, let me remind you to my example with Regent. Without mass support, and with 3000+ incomings coming in within a week (FYI, it's like constantly receiving an incoming in every 3 minutes for a week long, 24/7), he managed to have a full ~1000 points damage. As soon as it ended, he was immediately taking hostile villages, so the rebuilding should have been pretty exhausting indeed. Yes, you're right that dodging and moving troops around should have been time intensive; and that's where a properly organized war sitting can make miracles without making any participant too exhausted to continue and even making it sure that the account won't be much damaged.

However, I'm sure that you are right, since you can prove your right by... giving up, while Regent should have just received a tiny op on himself hence the only reason he and his tribe were able to manage the situation (which you were basing on the fact that you would have failed). Even if Regent is just being one of the many western examples and I could cite a dozen other situations when westerners were luckily surviving without their morale or account getting destroyed.

Also, as far as I remember you were joining to the game to wage war, since it's a war game. I still yet to see why bombarding is an unexpected strategy in a wargame (or actually, in any war). I'm playing since W3, and never heard about similar problems before - the game is pretty simple. Anyone with a half brain can realize that capatults are there for a reason. It's not rocket science to also find out that if you can throw someone with a rock, he, in fact, probably will be able to do the same in return.

But being proud of how "we nuked them out" is for me...unworthy, can't find a better word for that.

There is a reason the first doctrine of our tribe was something like "Expect to lose villages. It's a wargame". Being proud of defeating someone in-game (using in-game tactics) is pretty normal. Saying otherwise is like hating someone due to him using the queen in chess once you were losing your own. Giving up because you weren't prepared for the fact you can also receive mass damages in a wargame is a different story - but your opponent really cannot be blamed for that (nor be proud of your "weakness", though - speaking of the TW aspect, not a RL weakness of course). It is always your decision how do you want to end the game; whatever you choose, you can only blame yourself for it.

So please explain it to me. I know by now reading your posts and reading between the lines that you are not able to teach anyone how to defend, and more important to withstand this kind of strategy. I mean, you even fail to understand why external factors got a lot to do with how effective this strategy can be.

You're twisting my words, Sueco, I was merely stating that there are internal circumstances - which you were fully ignoring -, not that externals cannot exist. Just like you are once again blaming external circumstances (my complete inability to "teach" you anything) instead of merely, for the sake of it, suspecting that there might be internal reasons for your inability to understand my statements as well.

As for me being a terrible teacher... I don't have excuses. Most of our starting players - as this has been their first world - were learning the game from me and a couple others, so why don't you simply ask them about this topic, or just simply checking their results, ie. in regards of defending against mass nuking? :icon_wink:

However, if I'm unable to teach anyone how to defend at all or actually survive a bombardment, I'm not sure what do you want me to explain.

 

[DeletedUser]

Yeah, I admit, I'm naive and wrong on this subject. That's why I am, along with my bombarded members are still here, and you were quitting.

Got nothing to do with the subject. Pleas try again, or better don't if you fail to follow the subject.

Not if I wouldn't enjoy if you're first trying to prove how wrong I'm then simply repeating my lines using a slightly different wording, but... well, it's not making you get a point.

Don't got a clue what you are trying to say here.

You're free to think as such. With respect, I'm thinking otherwise. In fact, most of those who are still playing could teach you a couple things (and speaking about defending, protecting battle morale should be also taken into account).

Not if they have been to your "school". By the way, you forgot to reply on that quote showing clearly you should not talk that loud about defending against mass bombardment. I do agree to the line of "protecting battle morale" thou.

It is getting totally pointless around this point. You told you don't have a clue about what I'm talking about, what I'm comparing your situation to, yet you're sure that I'm wrong about comparing these things to yours (once again, without you actually knowing the compared situations at all). You are trying to sell it as a fact based on your feelings that it shouldn't be that simple that they didn't suffer the same morale damage and didn't quit, so it should be the external circumstances being different, because nobody else would be able to survive that what was destroying your fun and made you quit. It's a solid, heavily supported statement, indeed.

Another wall of nonsense. I tried to figure what you are so eager to say but couldn't. You have been contradicting yourself so many times that it's getting confusing. Anyway you are still talking about specific scenarios, that still got nothing to do with this.
Why I'm so sure? You are talking mostly as if you face a few hundred incomings where you can move around troops and find out where the fakes are, so on.

First, let me remind you to my example with Regent. Without mass support, and with 3000+ incomings coming in within a week (FYI, it's like constantly receiving an incoming in every 3 minutes for a week long, 24/7), he managed to have a full ~1000 points damage. As soon as it ended, he was immediately taking hostile villages, so the rebuilding should have been pretty exhausting indeed. Yes, you're right that dodging and moving troops around should have been time intensive; and that's where a properly organized war sitting can make miracles without making any participant too exhausted to continue and even making it sure that the account won't be much damaged.

Oh dear. Defending against 3000 attacks during one week is really nothing to worry about. And you are doing another error in this quote. It's not like one incoming every 3 minutes. Of course it's theoretical possible but I assume they were landing like they usually do, some villages received more incomings then others, some attacks were landing close to each other while some arrived late...so on. And we are not talking about a one week bombardment, can you please get that? You said earlier he took about 1000 nukes, right? I mean come on buddy!If you got 500 villages that is two to each, that is really nothing.

However, I'm sure that you are right, since you can prove your right by... giving up, while Regent should have just received a tiny op on himself hence the only reason he and his tribe were able to manage the situation (which you were basing on the fact that you would have failed). Even if Regent is just being one of the many western examples and I could cite a dozen other situations when westerners were luckily surviving without their morale or account getting destroyed.

You are funny. I'm still not talking about eastern being lucky. You are. Why do you got such of complex about that? I'm totally neutral here as I'm not talking about your war. I'm talking about, yes you are right, a strategy. And put to the record: I didn't fail. I got bored to death and quit AFTER they stopped attacking me.

Also, as far as I remember you were joining to the game to wage war, since it's a war game. I still yet to see why bombarding is an unexpected strategy in a wargame (or actually, in any war). I'm playing since W3, and never heard about similar problems before - the game is pretty simple. Anyone with a half brain can realize that capatults are there for a reason. It's not rocket science to also find out that if you can throw someone with a rock, he, in fact, probably will be able to do the same in return.

You certainly don't talk like you got that experience. You just keep writing walls of text in that fancy manner thinking you are right if you are the better man of letters. Unfortunately you don't prove your points very well, on the contrary.
Anyway, it's not necessarily unexpected. But it's still unexpected how a tribe can keep doing this for months, or years, without any attempt to noble villages from the targets. That's what the game is about, at least to me.

Being proud of defeating someone in-game (using in-game tactics) is pretty normal.

I wouldn't be if all I managed to do was to make someone quit duo to this strategy.

You're twisting my words, Sueco, I was merely stating that there are internal circumstances - which you were fully ignoring -, not that externals cannot exist. Just like you are once again blaming external circumstances (my complete inability to "teach" you anything) instead of merely, for the sake of it, suspecting that there might be internal reasons for your inability to understand my statements as well.

I don't twist anyones words, that's not my style. At least not by purpose. But I do think we are misunderstanding each other here. When I'm talking about external circumstances I'm talking about things like incomings on tribemates, inactivity, distance to the attackers, how many villages that need to be stacked...so on. Things that might affect internal circumstances. Happy?