Meep, you asking why Panda didn't wave CR early, can't that go both ways? Why didn't CR wave Panda, BB, Pyro etc. Early? Were CR pre CF'd with them before age started?
Just asking out of curiosity.
Printable View
Meep, you asking why Panda didn't wave CR early, can't that go both ways? Why didn't CR wave Panda, BB, Pyro etc. Early? Were CR pre CF'd with them before age started?
Just asking out of curiosity.
I said FREE could have waved us at any time, so it's pretty stupid for mike^ to try and claim we dodged FREE since we haven't been CF'd with them at any point the entire age.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aranfein
Maybe read the post I was responding to.
Those halfers would be hurting....
So I've seen this posted a few times, but whats the idea behind drafting to a -ppa value? Is it simply to kill hostile dragons, or is it something else? It seems kind of dumb to draft that deep to me.
1. Conflicts in general are in the end won by those with raw power more so than mod.Quote:
So I've seen this posted a few times, but whats the idea behind drafting to a -ppa value? Is it simply to kill hostile dragons, or is it something else? It seems kind of dumb to draft that deep to me.
2. Land is finite in top wars, you simply try and get as much military on it as possible.
3. Peasants get FBed anyways, so are useless.
In the ghetto tier a 30K acre KD on 5M might have more potency than a 25K acre KD on 5M, simply because their mods will be higher etc, and you mostly agree war based on NW. In the top the 30K acre KD won't be 5M but 6M, which means they will have more military and will most likely win the conflict.
As to the crux of the argument:
I like that pandas went 4/4 to get there, I like fighting to win it. It seems if they did better diplo they coulda set CR up to be 2 weeks after one of those wins and then take the win (like vs us) and then use it to win age. But they seemed to always have CR a week after whatever war they had so then they could never fight em so always had to push back. Seemed like bad CF management on pandas front, but to be honest that's probably what the most common mistake is by the people more new to the top. It seems like if at any point pandas had their CR Ceasefire end 2 weeks after one of their planned wars that they won, they woulda been able to beat CR. They just always ended 1 week behind instead of 2, giving CR all the leverage.
At same time, CR has a good point too. At any point pandas coulda set it up to fight them but they didn't, so hard to blame CR for being 0/0. To be honest, when we razed down I thought we were just backing out and letting the two of them fight. We let the two of them decide our CF's as part of the deal. I was a bit surprised we ended up having to fight one of the two of em first. I thought the deal was we'd back out and let the two of em fight it out fairly early to decide the winner without our land being a factor.
Side note: Taking 10k+ acres off a 4 person kd is lame IMO. Can see why pandas would be mad. But then Zaup posted something where him and anri agreed not to both CF the weaker sides and just up and wave em instead....so hard to blame CR for up and waving people.
Doesn't change the fact that its rather silly a kd can be 180k acres with 0 wars. Rules need to change back to give the smaller kd some sort of leverage other than just agreeing to give land ever since the 150 auto-war cap gave the bigger kd all the leverage. Probably something like moving the meter cap to 300 or so.
I've often stated that smaller kingdoms need to consider the danger of bottom feeders as a constant and real threat. Generally the top feeder strat, which I'm only supporting in it's defensive prowess, isn't as potent vs a conventional war build. However, I've found on a personal note, that I don't need to be in a conventional build to succeed in my tier. In fact, even up near the top I'm fairly convinced the crappy hybrids I build would be better suited to the environment.
So my conclusion is this; a good top kingdom would likely circumvent a top feeder and possibly proxy the acres via small vulnerable kingdoms willing to feed acres to protect UBs. You just keep your eye on the ball. You have to make people think and outwork them. You have to pay attention to the pipelines.
In gaming it's fine to like and honor great players, but to compete you must hold them all accountable or suffer the consequences. Obviously that says a lot about my nonaggressive approach. What am I competing with? I like to make sure the best have to earn their keep if they come my way...Or, that I come out ahead. No, I'm not a kingdom player at heart but I do it because I'm a nice guy and believe in team.
No need to change mechanic IMHO. Players need to feel they are on even ground with anybody and have the right to defend what is theirs. It's the squirming UBs that usually cry the loudest. Poor bastards.
Remove meter cap but also remove decreased gains for the top. I find it silly that a prov in a smaller KD has 50% more gains retalling a hit from a bigger KD.Quote:
Doesn't change the fact that its rather silly a kd can be 180k acres with 0 wars. Rules need to change back to give the smaller kd some sort of leverage other than just agreeing to give land ever since the 150 auto-war cap gave the bigger kd all the leverage. Probably something like moving the meter cap to 300 or so.
Would be a good idea to introduce a standard practice in which any agreed CF cannot last longer than 1 week (I know, hard to police, but we can try no?). For those familiar with risk, if you play with 4 people and yellow is stacking in Australia then takes over Asia. What happens next? Exactly, the others gang up and rape that person. But now, imagine yellow having a CF with blue who is in Europe and red who is in Africa. So now only green who is on NA can hit him via alaska, and he can simply stack all his troops there while leaving his western lands on 1 troop. Many would find this "boring", yet we seem so fond of it in uto.
I have played games of Risk where there were CFs that could be broken with a noticeof a couple turns. Sometimes it can be MORE exciting, because you might be halfway through clearing out one player and then your CF partner gives notice and you have to worry about being over extended. Without CFs you just don't over extend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart of Sparta
I don't understand what's so complicated about this. For many rounds now, very few kingdoms have actually wanted to war us. Like I'm not trying to brag or anything... it's just reality. Even when we did the war tier round and all of these kingdoms that talk big about how if a top kingdom came to the war tier they'd get their asses beat. They all ran! And I get it... I'm not saying that Panda has been dodging us... it's just their leaders owe it to their kingdom to make the play that they think is the winning play. In their minds they knew they would never have the bpa/gold advantage, so they could perhaps get a big land lead to offset it. But at the same time, it's pretty ****ing unfair to criticize how we're playing the cards that we're dealt. Take a ****ing look at the leaderboard. This isn't round 4. You have actual war tier kingdoms (people that purposely limit growth and/or get land dropped) that are in the top 10/20.
If you guys want to setup a war tournament next round, I'm all about that. Maybe we need to mix things up in utopia to make it enjoyable again?
As far as this war, it's still too soon to know what's going to happen. We have a pretty good control on the top, but as I said already, I really, really dislike playing against avian core kingdoms. It's damn near impossible to open on them without getting double waved. I'm interested to see how they're going to proceed. So far they've been playing exactly as I've been predicting that they would. I'm not certain it's correct, but it's what I imagined they thought that they needed to do.
Those counseling sessions are paying off, seriously, nice way to sum it up :D
Thanks. We've been practicing letting things go that I have no control over.
I don't know about all your other wars, but at least in our case you waved us being 10% bigger and +2 provs, then proceeded raze-killing us. We added 2 provs, but when we declared we had 4 under protection 2 of which only came OOP 2.5 days into the war. I believe after ~4-5 days the NW diff was about 5% when we pulled out. All fair game, but don't act as if you guys effortlessly rolled over all KDs that age.Quote:
Even when we did the war tier round and all of these kingdoms that talk big about how if a top kingdom came to the war tier they'd get their asses beat.
People have posted and argued for ages that "If you have provinces in range for us to gain off them, you're fair game to be hit"Quote:
Originally Posted by flogger
A 4 prov 30k acre KD with 2 provs in the top 20 in the world that does no diplo, doesn't respond to messages, and is just rotating between fort and exploring and then back to fort, is fair game to be hit.
--
And I still think the meter thing is not a solution. Ghettos and ghetto players don't want to waste their time fighting at max activity for days with literally nothing to gain. Even with more meter room, it still requires better activity than all but a few warring KDs have to actually hostile well against someone that much bigger than you.
Meep I know you meant FREE, but if you look at my post I'm asking a completely different question...
If CR can't find wars why didn't they war bb, panda, pyro, the u etc early age? Was it because you pre CF'd or was there another reason? (I'm asking course numerous CR players saying noone to fight).
On a different note just change the damn NW gains to Acre gains and all those issues will be removed.