Hmm, well I see this as a dicsussion regarding 2 of the questions posed by the author (Why Hammer would not win either of those suggested wars), so i will continue until told otherwise.
Fair enough.
If you refer to me a comment of yours which is against [DN]/Hammer/DECIDE then i will be more than happy to agree with that - though i don't blame you in any way for being biased towards your own tribe and allies.
Hmm... I suppose following this logic, you could say the same of THE and BD as being a mote biased. In any event, I disagree.
Though I may restrain from giving bad reviews of those tribes, I do not give good reviews when they are not merited. I also do not give bad reviews of other tribes, such as your own, when they are not merited, or grounded on sound logic. Therefore, my stance is not biased, it is merely calculated. Now, unless you are going to tell me that being calculated makes what I write wrong, then I suppose I its safe to say I am right here.
From what i can see, the loss of these two founders has had a knock on effect for the rest of the tribe (Particularly some of their big guns leaving); which shows to me that they did not mean little to Hammer. Maybe it is WAS for the best - but only time will tell.
By top players the stats clearly show the bigger pointer players with more ODA have left - a lot of the remaining best players in Hammer now look like they have originally come from different tribes, TER or WOW etc
I thought about this, and decided to see how potent these "top players" were in relations to modern Hammer (say, last couple months?) and therefore, how relevant their loss truly is to Hammer. You can see the results in the Hammer thread. I'm sure when you check there, you will understand why I believe the tribal changes are irrelevant and groundless.
As for the effect of aristocracy, only Hammer can speak for that. I am not in their tribe, and do not know its true impact, merely what I can observe from the outside. I still stand, however, that you share the same grounds, therefore, our opinions hold equal merit in that. So again, agree to disagree.
Moreover I strongly disagree with your comment about diplos being irrelevant at this stage of the game (Given their skills could be more useful at other points in the game - but NOT pointless), loosing a player with decent diplomatic skills is a sore loss for any tribe's diplomacy.
"Hey BD, who is your diplomat?" Lol!
Seriously though, we can disagree there, but at this stage, all the pieces are in place, the tribes that matter know who they will war and who they will not. Perhaps when the dust settles a diplomat will come in handy again, but at this stage in the game, I do not think it has any detrimental effect on Hammer. Nevertheless, their diplomat has been replaced anyway by one that is just as effective in my opinion, so therefore, again, no more loss than just another player.
I'm not sure how else you can read into Hammers tribal changes stats, basing my argument on solid stats depicting MULTIPLE big Hammer players leaving (Either temporarily or on a permanent basis) seems like a good argument to me!
See above. As for the ones that left temporarily, that was a game amongst friends. They are there now, and they were not gone long, so even if it weren't just that, it obviously wasn't anything serious. But you can choose to see it however you wish to, whatever gives you comfort.
And i'm not sure why you you have rushed into the conclusion that my argument is based off ex hammer players intel?
Well, I approached how valid your outside perspective is, and if I do say so myself, have proven that to be rather inept. (Again, check the Hammer thread.) So what is left? Your new recruit of course!
So why rush to that conclusion? Precognition.
