Simians Vs Sanctuary

It's funny how in the same thread several people, initially flogger, states no one below top 10 can beat the top kd's strategically. At the same time jdorje says (I never learnt the quote-by thing):

Quote:

---

Bio withdrew because they were significantly losing the war, and withdrawing gives a HUGE advantage in acres. In an even war, whoever withdraws is guaranteed to gain significantly, so kingdoms that don't care about winning have a massive advantage (side note, this makes the war win charts completely irrelevant) From the KD page it didn't look to me like bio would have started losing acres immediately had they continued, nor was the war fully unwinnable, but they were smart to get out at a good moment.

---

We did not only beat Sanc, but ended up with a lot of + acres after their maxgain wave and WD. We're not better than Sanc, but with 19 vs 25 hitters and enemy doing last maxgain wave, we outgained them in mintime due to strategical hits. Humility is a virtue, even if you're a top kd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baka

Getting a WW against Rage really has no value to us.. to some maybe, since they need the bragging rights. But we're fine with saying we lost the war to Rage. Half empty, half full. What's your cup of tea?

---

At the risk of completely derailing this thread, I don't see how you could have gotten a win against rage. They had no incentive to withdraw being down acres but with stronger military. Bio might have been able to turn the war around, but I doubt it - it was just a matter of time before you'd have had to withdraw anyway. Of course this ties in to everyone's complaint about how war wins are completely meaningless - making a war win chart when it's so advantageous to lose wars is really premature.

"WWs are irrelevant".

Umad?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KuhaN

Umad?

---

You may recall I suggested changing withdrawing to require 6 hours without hits. Even that wouldn't make war wins really worthwhile, but at least it wouldn't be such a drawback to win a war. Of course, all the warring kingdoms hated the idea - maybe because they'd find it harder to win?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jdorje

You may recall I suggested changing withdrawing to require 6 hours without hits. Even that wouldn't make war wins really worthwhile, but at least it wouldn't be such a drawback to win a war. Of course, all the warring kingdoms hated the idea - maybe because they'd find it harder to win?

---

I like the idea. It would merge WWs with land/nw, and i think thats what needs to be done.

Atm, people play for whatever reasons they find more enjoyable, for you its land/nw, for others its winning wars. I dont care either way, just saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jdorje

At the risk of completely derailing this thread, I don't see how you could have gotten a win against rage. They had no incentive to withdraw being down acres but with stronger military. Bio might have been able to turn the war around, but I doubt it - it was just a matter of time before you'd have had to withdraw anyway. Of course this ties in to everyone's complaint about how war wins are completely meaningless - making a war win chart when it's so advantageous to lose wars is really premature.

---

In today's day and age where acres shift from one side to another and back. The kd that ultimately wins after x amount of weeks is the one that has UB's and the better income.

Rage has 2 banks.

Rage wins the war by default.

Actually.. I don't even get your point here.. no one denied that Rage were going to lose. But that even if we didn't wd at the time we did, we could've gotten another wave in before they even had armies home. We took our gains and left.

WW has no value to us at this point in time. We do not need the bragging rights. I'm sure Sanctuary has been saying that to themselves the past few ages so you should get my point here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jdorje

At the risk of completely derailing this thread, I don't see how you could have gotten a win against rage. They had no incentive to withdraw being down acres but with stronger military. Bio might have been able to turn the war around, but I doubt it - it was just a matter of time before you'd have had to withdraw anyway. Of course this ties in to everyone's complaint about how war wins are completely meaningless - making a war win chart when it's so advantageous to lose wars is really premature.

---

You have a perspective issue here though. You consider the war win meaningless because you only care about land. That's not the case for everybody else. If you're not trying to win the nw/land charts, withdrawing with gains is usually not a priority at all. Plenty of kd's would even prefer to not gain a lot of land, since they'd risk growing out of range from other war targets.

It all comes back to the kd goals, and that's the problem. You can't possibly design a system that forces everyone to accept a single definition of a war win. Some kd's want land, so a win for them is gaining land. Others want honor, so a win for them is getting honor. Some care only about the competition, and a win for them is simply forcing someone else to give up. Some only care about denying their enemy of whatever it is they want. Land is a bad measure for most kd's, because they have no chance of charting anyway, so why should they give a ****? Honor at least has positive effects for your provinces. I'd say most kd's war because they want honor and to force someone else to give up.

I'd argue that if a kd that wants land wars a kd that wants honor, they can both win a war at the same time. Who gets the war win on the kd page is irrelevant, because their definitions of what's a win differs. Each kd will decide for themselves if they won the war or not, because the game can't ever do it with any credibility. If you have a clear goal, and you achieve that goal, you've won. For a lot of kd's, the war win on the kd page means you've forced your enemy to give up, and if both kd's had the goal of doing that, the number itself actually has meaning.

I suspect we don't really disagree about much of this, so I dunno why I'm writing all this :P

But gaining land in war usually means gaining honor with it, so they are linked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gergnub

But gaining land in war usually means gaining honor with it, so they are linked.

---

They could be linked, but there's no guarantee that they are. Making more hits usually leads to getting more honor, but you can outhit someone without outgaining them. How you play with t/m's and such also plays a major role.

i like how you guys complicate your lives.

Rage won against Bio. its stated on their warwins count. simple as that.

dont make your lives more complicated cos you're not einstein and your wife might get mad.

ww's are silly still.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluebear

Remember simians started with an advantage :P

---

Lol sure, hitting into fortified is an advantage. I'm sure we also had an advantage last age hitting you into fortified ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gergnub

ww's are silly still.

---

ur silly, mr sillypants! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prot

ur silly, mr sillypants! ;)

---

No no, we are the silly ones!!
So WW being silly is best compliment you can give us :)

so many ghettos think they can beat top kds at war. rofl

when did sanctuary become a top kingdom?