I bet that hurt...

[Shlomzi]

yes u mean to say Gav... he is leading Ginger..

Incorrect.

The -Hobgoblin- account was set up by me (Conor). Gavin then co-played with me after he left his original account (Doctor Doom).

Gavin does not lead Ginger, I do

But yes, SpartinGavinDCU aka Gav does play the -Hobgoblin- account.

 

[DeletedUser]

well then you got my support man

 

[DeletedUser44039]

wow! we discover new thinks everyday xo

 

[DeletedUser]

Congrats on a good defense.

We do, however, now realize that we have to cut not only through your defenses but also through the defenses of another major tribe that is supporting you.

So the underdog card is indeed kind of ridiculous and cheap in this case, shlomzi.

No worries, we will adjust now that we know the score - we've seen this kind of thing before.

Just want to note, the players under attack recieved no outside support. The majority, including myself sniped the trains ourselves.

Personally, I got one village supported, from a member within Ginger. The majority of trains were illtimed hence our huge ODD growth.

As for SpartanGav, he co-plays the hob account.

Ebbs.

 

[DeletedUser]

TheStreak had said that large member counts take more time to organize.
This is the reason I disagree with that.

Alright so you have a 400 member tribe, your enemy tribe has 100 members.
Most good tribes are organized into groups, namely continents later on in mid/late game. Usually these continents have continent/group leaders. All the leader of the tribe has to do, is tell each of these group leaders what the landing time of the coordinated strike is, which players need to be mass faked, which members need to be targeted by that specific group, and any other specifics that might be included. It takes all but about 5 minutes to do send these messages out. Usually when opening these mails, as previously experienced it takes a bit less than a day (if the group leader is qualified, as he/she should be) to get it all put together.

This is why the 400 member tribe can go just as fast as a 100 member tribe. You will probably argue with me about how thats not done individually by the leader - but thats not the point here. Larger tribes can organize just as fast if not faster than smaller tribes, depending on how the tribe is set up. If the larger tribe doesn't have a system like that, well its their own fault for being so incredibly stupid.

That's a very idealized way of looking at the system. The fact is, when it gets down to the real thing, and time is an issue, commands go over far faster if you have less ranks in the command chain. Experience from past worlds dictates that the more people these commands need to get past, the slower reaction times are, and the less accurate the timings are.

Also, less people usually means less beauracracy, and the leaders have a more intimate relationship with their members. They know what they're capable of, the reaction and response times are usually shorter, and there's a stronger bond and more incentive to help out a fellow tribemate. Inter-group activities are usually stronger and done with less hesitation, because you aren't receiving abstract orders to send your troops to unknown players.

Even on a personal level, one player with 10 villages will be able to time many attacks right down to the millisecond. It is far more difficult for 10 players with 1 village each to achieve the same amount of coordination, and it'd take a lot more time and communication between them in order to do so.

So yes, theoretically the 400-member tribe might be able to perform the same as the 100-man tribe (although I can't imagine why you'd think they could be faster...), but time and time again it's been seen that that's not the case.

 

[DeletedUser]

That's a very idealized way of looking at the system. The fact is, when it gets down to the real thing, and time is an issue, commands go over far faster if you have less ranks in the command chain. Experience from past worlds dictates that the more people these commands need to get past, the slower reaction times are, and the less accurate the timings are.

Also, less people usually means less beauracracy, and the leaders have a more intimate relationship with their members. They know what they're capable of, the reaction and response times are usually shorter, and there's a stronger bond and more incentive to help out a fellow tribemate. Inter-group activities are usually stronger and done with less hesitation, because you aren't receiving abstract orders to send your troops to unknown players.

Even on a personal level, one player with 10 villages will be able to time many attacks right down to the millisecond. It is far more difficult for 10 players with 1 village each to achieve the same amount of coordination, and it'd take a lot more time and communication between them in order to do so.

So yes, theoretically the 400-member tribe might be able to perform the same as the 100-man tribe (although I can't imagine why you'd think they could be faster...), but time and time again it's been seen that that's not the case.

you are correct... it is much harder to coordinate attacks with a 300 member tribe than with an 80 member tribe. I knopw this from personal experience now.

 

[DeletedUser]

Just want to note, the players under attack recieved no outside support. The majority, including myself sniped the trains ourselves.

Personally, I got one village supported, from a member within Ginger. The majority of trains were illtimed hence our huge ODD growth.

As for SpartanGav, he co-plays the hob account.

Ebbs.

lol

Nice try, but....we did take a few villages, you know, and there was outside support coming.

Maybe some Ginger "grunts" did not get any, but the aristos and those near a certain *cough cough* other large tribe sure did.

Ole Shlomzi can come on here and post his lies all day long - we know the score.

 

[Shlomzi]

lol

Nice try, but....we did take a few villages, you know, and there was outside support coming.

Maybe some Ginger "grunts" did not get any, but the aristos and those near a certain *cough cough* other large tribe sure did.

Ole Shlomzi can come on here and post his lies all day long - we know the score.

Please, post proof. If there was outside support coming it would have landed and you would have a report. Maxxed1982 was stacked with a load of troops from Ginger in most of his villages. I know I sent 95% of my own defense to support him so that I only had one defense village left at home.

The only Ginger aristo targetted was Maxxed1982. The only player I asked to be supported was tai so (aka Ebbs), and he wasn't supported.

Ole weltide can come on here and post his lies all day long - we know the score.

 

[DeletedUser]

That's a very idealized way of looking at the system. The fact is, when it gets down to the real thing, and time is an issue, commands go over far faster if you have less ranks in the command chain. Experience from past worlds dictates that the more people these commands need to get past, the slower reaction times are, and the less accurate the timings are.

Also, less people usually means less beauracracy, and the leaders have a more intimate relationship with their members. They know what they're capable of, the reaction and response times are usually shorter, and there's a stronger bond and more incentive to help out a fellow tribemate. Inter-group activities are usually stronger and done with less hesitation, because you aren't receiving abstract orders to send your troops to unknown players.

Even on a personal level, one player with 10 villages will be able to time many attacks right down to the millisecond. It is far more difficult for 10 players with 1 village each to achieve the same amount of coordination, and it'd take a lot more time and communication between them in order to do so.

So yes, theoretically the 400-member tribe might be able to perform the same as the 100-man tribe (although I can't imagine why you'd think they could be faster...), but time and time again it's been seen that that's not the case.

Theoretically eh?
Obviously you've just never been in a tribe that works like this. I don't care what you, or anyone else says about the matter because I have been in tribes like this before. You can't mass catagorize tribes like that, because not all tribes have the same members/same leaders/same rules/same discipline/etc. Weldtide is agreeing with you because he is in R.L. and it makes him look good.

As for your statement -
"Also, less people usually means less beauracracy, and the leaders have a more intimate relationship with their members. They know what they're capable of, the reaction and response times are usually shorter, and there's a stronger bond and more incentive to help out a fellow tribemate. Inter-group activities are usually stronger and done with less hesitation, because you aren't receiving abstract orders to send your troops to unknown players.

Even on a personal level, one player with 10 villages will be able to time many attacks right down to the millisecond. It is far more difficult for 10 players with 1 village each to achieve the same amount of coordination, and it'd take a lot more time and communication between them in order to do so."

Knowing the members does help - and people are more willing to send attacks out when asked - but your point about intimate relationships is completely void. Reason being that the continent/group leaders can be that intimate relationship.

As for your other statement about 1 player with 10 villages vs 10 players with 1 village, this is also a completely void statement. Reason being - you said that it would take a lot more time and communication to coordinate properly, I fail to see how and why. All you have to do is tell them "hit targets x, y and z at this date and time. Send fakes to A, B and C to land at this date and time. Support fakes here and here." How is this any different from what you would do with less members? It all goes down to if your tribe is disciplined or not. Odds are always going to say that more members means a few of them will miss a time here or there, thats just simple math. But that percentage of players would stay the same for larger or smaller tribes depending on how the tribe is lead and how the members are treated + react to leadership/treatment. You are viewing a large scale tribe as mass recruitment, this is not always the case. It is much better to have a 200 member tribe with good players than a 50 member tribe with good players, its just that usually the 200 member tribe is not full of good members therefore cannot coordinate. Meanwhile if you had a 200 member tribe with good players they could and would coordinate.

Please Note - I am not trying to make myself seem hostile, I am only expressing my oppinion as to why I think you are wrong No offense intended.

 

[thehorror]

have to say rio im on the streaks side

 

[DeletedUser]

Wow, things are being blow out of the water a little.

I have to agree, its harder for 10 players with 1 village to take out 1 player with 1.

However, this is not the case. It's roughly 4:1. Now is it hard for 4 players to co-ordinate, no its not. I am sure, that if Me, Hob, maxx and another co-ordinated on a target 4 times our size, we would take more than 10 villages in 1 strike.

3/4 players is a perfect amount to co-ordinate with on an op.

Another point people seem to over look is the shear village difference. They have 1,000 more villages to send a build nukes from. So yes in total they have more points yada yada, but with 1000 more villages, they have alot more fire power. They could in theory send 1,000 nukes at us and only after that would they have the same amount of filled villages.

Funniest thing about this war is that we have to noble 1,000 villages from them just to switch places.

An endless war...

 

[DeletedUser]

have to say rio im on the streaks side

Dear lord I hate my coplayers.

 

[DeletedUser]

As for your other statement about 1 player with 10 villages vs 10 players with 1 village, this is also a completely void statement. Reason being - you said that it would take a lot more time and communication to coordinate properly, I fail to see how and why. All you have to do is tell them "hit targets x, y and z at this date and time. Send fakes to A, B and C to land at this date and time. Support fakes here and here." How is this any different from what you would do with less members? It all goes down to if your tribe is disciplined or not. Odds are always going to say that more members means a few of them will miss a time here or there, thats just simple math. But that percentage of players would stay the same for larger or smaller tribes depending on how the tribe is lead and how the members are treated + react to leadership/treatment. You are viewing a large scale tribe as mass recruitment, this is not always the case. It is much better to have a 200 member tribe with good players than a 50 member tribe with good players, its just that usually the 200 member tribe is not full of good members therefore cannot coordinate. Meanwhile if you had a 200 member tribe with good players they could and would coordinate.

Where do you get this from? It is completely void to expect 1 player to manage 10 villages a lot more effectively than 10 players will manage 1 village each and act in unison? You really believe this??? 1 player can quickly gloss over his overview panels and instantly formulate in his head what is going on, what must be done, what can't be achieved and what the right course of action is, as well as use whatever personal tools he prefers to accomplish all of this. Spread that out to 10, and you now must communicate this to others, hope they all catch it in time before attacks land, etc. etc. Furthermore, you don't know exactly what their resources are, where they are currently allocated, what they're capable of, or even whether or not you can rely on them all to give you all that is at their disposal. Not as well as you know yourself. This analogy works from 10 to 100 members, from 100 to 500 members.

Frankly I just don't believe you if you've ever been in a tribe that's able to act as a single person (the TW equivalent of a hive mind).

This isn't to say that in a war, a 200 member tribe with the same quality of players as a 50 member tribe will not have the upper hand. That's clearly not what this discussion is about. We are talking about quality vs. quantity, or in this case more villages amongst fewer members vs. less villages amongst more members.

 

[Shlomzi]

Dear lord I hate my coplayers.

He is on streaks side for a few reasons:

a) He is a fool as seen by what happened with Chess
b) He was confronted by me over this
c) He is immature and held a grudge
d) He hates Ginger and his bias is clear as he doesn't even form arguments, just hurls insults at us and says "I agree with them".

So essentially he doesn't really care. He just knows you are attacking thestreaks argument which is attacking Ginger. Therefore you are indirectly defending Ginger which is a tribe he dislikes.

I'm not siding with either side as I'm not interested enough to read the posts on the matter.

 

[DeletedUser]

you are correct... it is much harder to coordinate attacks with a 300 member tribe than with an 80 member tribe. I knopw this from personal experience now.

Tut tut tut :icon_neutral:

When you run a tribe with 300 members, it is your responsibility to ensure that it functions as any other well-oiled tribe would. You can't expect the public out here in the forums to have any sympathy for you, or your tribe, if you come out here and say a statement like the one you made above.

I know from my own experience that any mass-recruiting tribe is just a load of failure. The only people who might (note, it is might) be decent in the game by means of skill or activity would be the council. Even that would be down to just a handful of the members.

From what I had read before, one of your members (either you or 308404) stated that R.L. is now a fairly improved tribe and so you are confident that you can put up a good fight against Ginger. Right then, I thought you guys may have the necessary firepower, and the will-power to achieve some sort of a stalemate.

However, with that one reply which you posted now, you lost my opinion about your tribe. What riogrande posted was theoretically possible. I admit that I don't have much exposure to TW as I've not played in the older worlds. However, I agree with him there. I think that when any individual wants to lead a tribe, he should ensure that irrespective of the number of members, the tribe should function as a well-oiled machine. If he can achieve that, then the number of members do not count.

And that is exactly what I thought of your tribe. I thought that even though you guys mass recruited in the beginning, you have managed to turn things around now, barring a few members. Sadly, I've just realised that you haven't made much of a change to your tribe's setup. You simply cannot afford to put up such an irresponsible statement, and then expect people to sympathise with you or your members. If you are not able to get things working right, go for an overhaul. Change your tribe's setup. Throw out those unco-operative, nagging members, who give you a headache. Warn those players who are powerful but are yet, care-bears when it comes to a war. It is your responsibility to streamline your tribe. And from what you just posted, I can only understand that you are nowhere close to achieving it.

I'm sorry to say that my opinion about R.L. has just come down. :icon_evil:

 

[Kash2Smash]

Also, less people usually means less beauracracy, and the leaders have a more intimate relationship with their members. They know what they're capable of, the reaction and response times are usually shorter, and there's a stronger bond and more incentive to help out a fellow tribemate. Inter-group activities are usually stronger and done with less hesitation, because you aren't receiving abstract orders to send your troops to unknown players.

i quite agree with this statement. well it is highly unlikely for a leader to know each and every members of his tribe.. lol.. i mean knowing 300 members and trying to give them commands is going to be hard..

also when you have more people, they are lots of different ideas within the tribe... the chances of having a rebellion again the leader would be quite high as well. not only that but how much can u personally monitor 300 members and see their growth or keep an eye on them?

riogrande, i understand ur part about squads and squad leaders governing them but still lol.. dividing 300 members into squads... :icon_eek: its going to be messed up.. the forums would be very disorganized, and it is very much known that when there is mass recruitment the amount of spam is alot... it even annoys serious players to see the freaking forum blue dot blinking all the time.. it may lead to in-activeness within the serious members. and coordination between 300 members is going to be heck of a mess.. also people start to take things lightly then some may think that i wont waste my troops on fakes or something, its not going to make any difference there are still 299 members sending attacks :lol:

 

[DeletedUser]

He is on streaks side for a few reasons:

a) He is a fool as seen by what happened with Chess
b) He was confronted by me over this
c) He is immature and held a grudge
d) He hates Ginger and his bias is clear as he doesn't even form arguments, just hurls insults at us and says "I agree with them".

So essentially he doesn't really care. He just knows you are attacking thestreaks argument which is attacking Ginger. Therefore you are indirectly defending Ginger which is a tribe he dislikes.

I'm not siding with either side as I'm not interested enough to read the posts on the matter.

You are siding against me because you are firmly intent on making Ginger out to be the disadvantaged side, and arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall plastered in propaganda posters.

 

[Shlomzi]

But the fact is they have 10 leaders who answer to no one in the department they run as shown by the circular Slowtyper sent.

So 300/10 = 30.

They used the fact I'm a dictator against me before. Lets use it now:

60/1 = 60

So, who has more to organise?

Oh and getting to know your members is a huge part of being a good leader. For most of mine I would know them on a first name basis, I'd know their relationship status, occupation, number of kids, age, hobbies etc. Knowing your members and getting them to like you as a person, not just a leader, makes them a lot more content and loyal.

 

[Shlomzi]

You are siding against me because you are firmly intent on making Ginger out to be the disadvantaged side, and arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall plastered in propaganda posters.

a) They have five times our members
b) They have 1000 more villages than us
c) They got a coalition against us

Care to explain to me how we're not at a disadvantage? It's pretty bloody obvious we are.

 

[DeletedUser]

Quantity-wise, yes, you guys are at a disadvantage.

But looking at other factors like quality, and co-ordination, I doubt if they hold any advantage against you. :icon_wink: They have a few decent members, but I think they also have a lot of deadweight in there. That's why weltide keeps whining about having to co-ordinate with 300-odd members. :lol: