Would you change anything if you had it to do over again.

[DeletedUser]

Getting on the "last enemy standing" is pretty much a death warrant. Whoever we vote for will lose. Even the aptly named Omegaman is unlike to be the Omega man.

the world will never close like that... not as long as there is a few east players paying premium... and I'll tell you why... because if they wont quit... then you have two choices.... you can keep paying your PP and fighting.... That will be incredibly boring when there are only a few villas left to attack for you guys... or you can delete.. which would technically mean that those few players have won and beat the entire apoc family single handed... I know... it's not what it says according to stats but in the end they will be the last ones standing...

I have no idea what the TW Admin rules are. I suspect you don't either.

If, as suggested, the admin folks simply introduce a no restart policy then that would be fine by us. At the rate the enemy is being nobled/deleted I wouldn't bet on the world lasting long afterwards.

 

[DeletedUser]

Martin,

I think the leaders failed to put an strong alliance together against the UA, the Brotherhood was not strong enough (because the tribes didn't trust each other).
So personal gain became stronger then the collective.
We all see that the UA was a power house, the only thing they are hoping for that was it would fell apart.
That was the biggest mistake, other things are only tiny chit chat.

The Brotherhood was not a plan imo. It was arrogance. Nothing personal to people but I believe its crafters may not have underestimated the UA but they overestimated their own power. I will say again in this game I believe power comes from aggression. The Brotherhood was not an aggressive act it was a neutral act based on pride. The class of the early powerhouse tribes could well have stayed on top if they had all been fighting. People grow fat in peacetime. Thats why I dont slam Legion. Legion had little peace. Their leaders fell off but their players were strong. "without a vision the people perish" scripturally thats what I believe. A leader must have a plan. The players must follow it. There are outside influences people quit for a variety of reasons often having little to do with the game. People are born on certain spots on the map, but leaders are a must and we had a deficit of leadership that Apoc never faced.

 

[DeletedUser]

You're right. We have a surfeit of leaders ;-)

It is worth stating that Legion and the core tribes provided us with the glue that brought the western tribes together. Apoc can trace many of its roots to a collection of rim-tribes. As rim tribes our objective was clear from the start: Get to the core. This was as much to do with proving others wrong (recall the discussions about how RKN had nowhere to go as it was "behind" TWA?) as it was about claiming 500|500. During the course of that journey we gained a significant level of confidence and we defined a new goal: Knocking MM off its "top dog" perch. At the time these goals seemed much more achievable than turning the world blue but as we strove towards those goals, the ultimate goal became more and more of a realistic and achievable objective.

From my perspective Legion and the other core tribes had a fundamental problem, one of indecision. They were already in the core. Who aspires to get to the rim in one direction? Every direction maybe, but not one. I think that's where the leadership could have/should have made a difference: Objective setting. Once the objectives are defined and understood there isn't that much need for active leadership at a strategic level, the majority of leadership is then tactical and tends to fall on the shoulders of the individual Op commanders (where required).

Apoc-D's leadership provides one of the best illustrations of the above. Aside from the odd circular and being around on Skype, Wolfhunt1, Zain, Zurtle (then Davidemah) and I simply took a back seat. Sure we constantly talked strategy between ourselves and, once and a while, communicated a new objective to the team but, for the most part, we simply tried to lead by example and provide an escalation path for intra and inter tribe issues. There wasn't a magic formula. But then the KISS principle applies...

 

[DeletedUser]

You're right. We have a surfeit of leaders ;-)

It is worth stating that Legion and the core tribes provided us with the glue that brought the western tribes together. Apoc can trace many of its roots to a collection of rim-tribes. As rim tribes our objective was clear from the start: Get to the core. This was as much to do with proving others wrong (recall the discussions about how RKN had nowhere to go as it was "behind" TWA?) as it was about claiming 500|500. During the course of that journey we gained a significant level of confidence and we defined a new goal: Knocking MM off its "top dog" perch. At the time these goals seemed much more achievable than turning the world blue but as we strove towards those goals, the ultimate goal became more and more of a realistic and achievable objective.

From my perspective Legion and the other core tribes had a fundamental problem, one of indecision. They were already in the core. Who aspires to get to the rim in one direction? Every direction maybe, but not one. I think that's where the leadership could have/should have made a difference: Objective setting. Once the objectives are defined and understood there isn't that much need for active leadership at a strategic level, the majority of leadership is then tactical and tends to fall on the shoulders of the individual Op commanders (where required).

Apoc-D's leadership provides one of the best illustrations of the above. Aside from the odd circular and being around on Skype, Wolfhunt1, Zain, Zurtle (then Davidemah) and I simply took a back seat. Sure we constantly talked strategy between ourselves and, once and a while, communicated a new objective to the team but, for the most part, we simply tried to lead by example and provide an escalation path for intra and inter tribe issues. There wasn't a magic formula. But then the KISS principle applies...

You know perhaps i'm overstating the leadership deficit. You make your case simple and well. Stability is what I really mean. Not an ever changing vision I hope you understand. A vision is to be stuck with. Goals are to be set. If you have no goal but to dominate the core then quit when you do. I'm not a goal setting person. I saw the challenge only. I would rather have had some leaders offer more educated game plans. The people I asked though were many and many said no. In apoc there seemed to be more stability and it was a part of why they won the day.

 

[DeletedUser]

Here is one thing that I believe helped my tribe last as long as it did:

Continuity of leadership

When I first decided to join BA-I, I sought that tribe out - even though they were not really near me. They were a top 5 tribe in the world, but maybe were #4 or so. I don't remember. Anyway, I hooked up with a guy named Drakkan69 and when BA-I split into TWA and BA, I went with the guys I knew -- Songoku and Drakkan. There were only a couple of us in k4 at that time.
We convinced BA to let us create a k4 tribe ... [BA]K4 (this later became the {BA} tribe). We then began recruiting the better players in the area to join us.
Within a month of starting, Drakkan quit and turned the tribe over to me and Songoku. We had no idea what we were doing, but the BA leaders (Hrovje.Spoljar and Ionna, et al) helped us with tactics and game fundamentals.

To the point now...
Songoku and I decided immediately that we did not want to "burn out" on the game as Drakkan did. So, we split the duties into 3 areas:

1. Diplomacy -- dealing with all foreign tribes and nobling complaints
2. War -- making the operations and coordinating attacks
3. Administration -- managing the forums and personnel issues

Through all the merge-downs of the [BA], [BA]K2, and {BA} tribes, this structure has remained.
So, we had 3 dukes and we all trusted each other to make decisions for the best interest of the tribe. We had our first Administration duke quit with no notice... and it didn't cripple us - because I and Songokue could pick up the slack. We had other dukes throughout the 2 years, too. But the structure we created allowed us to have continuity of leadership.

One of the biggest challenges I noticed other tribes having was that they were essentially at the mercy of their tribal leadership. In tribes with one strong leader, that could spell ruin if that leader messed up or picked wars he couldn't win.

 

[DeletedUser]

I agree with your last point. In RKN we had the Quad. In Apoc we have a variety of leadership structures including a 4 duke "Quad" in Apoc-D. At various points one or more of us were taken out by RL (both Zain and I were "away" from the game for long periods) These conflicts were barely recognised by the world in general or the tribe in particular. That was because we were ultimately dispensible. One thing I have learned to do in my professional life is plan succession; if only because I like going on vacation! What's true for RL is true for TW.

 

[DeletedUser]

I planned succession I swear I did but they kept leavin before I could...

 

[DeletedUser]

In apoc there seemed to be more stability and it was a part of why they won the day.

It's the tortoise and the hare thing again. Some tribes chose to live fast, die young, and ultimately return to real life sooner... some chose to play at a sustainable pace for a long term goal - and the latter is where many of the leaders came from.

The "rush" tribes can claim the role of Rutger Hauer from Blade Runner and say they were the candle that burned twice as bright, versus the late stage "boomers."