Emeriti vs Freeakstyle

[Proteus]

Which is one reason why I've told both FS and Emeriti that the 55-60M gc they took from us made no difference at all. When you require a billion just to be ready, 50m gc means nothing. :p

Theoretically, had FS been 110% your land, you'd still win. Your science/wpa is far greater, which would have been similar to when we fought you with a huge science disadvantage a couple ages ago.

Congrats

Thanks for the congrats, prot.


Agree it didn't change course of conflict but it's based on principal and what's considered ethical and what's not. You can't be in an alliance with Pyro/BB/FS and give each other resources for your fights, regardless of how much. It's not right. I didn't have a conversation with you after it happened but have heard hints and posts online that initially you were asked for acres rather than Gc - is that true? If in the old days Abs gave each other gold or land before their fights with Bb//Dreams/Sonata etc the community wouldn't have really allowed that.

The other fundamental issue is why is there an alliance between 3 top kds (or some agreement to not fight each other) when there are only 2 other conpetitors and given age that are not allied to each other. In the old days you'd have alliances being formed to counter other powerful alliances that exist here it's not necessary. Didn't CR just win 3 ages in a row without being part of any alliance whatsoever? Would be great if we could get an explanation on the need for an alliance or making deals with kds to not hit each other at all?

[StratOcastle]

I respectfully disagree, Persain. It's the fact that you have to do it. You're a fine strategist I grant you, but I function in environments with none of your signature benefits. There is no lockstep strat on my kingdoms part, but we have faced lockstep strats. I'm not naive to gigantic waves run properly. I've been the leadoff elf mystic, the big ass orc, the big ass avian, the big ass undead guy... And I studied the flaws.

I visit the bigs to see and update the viability of my tactics, maybe on a 7 age cycle. I test run them, the last vs FS, and dissect the outcome. You can always debate the worth of something in the context of your use for it, but I contend my use is every bit as relevant and not your cup of tea. You do know I never attack or steal unprovoked? I don't ring up massive science from learns or honor out of war. Everything I do I do in war. I face full blown attackers based in the tried and true meta that so many do. The ones you run.

Anyone can be chained, Persain. The art is in changing the meta. I'm supposed to be on zero, but I'm not. That's stalling. Secure your top? My endeavor is to secure mine. I retain range when the runes run low. Your next question was about thieves and the answer is yes.

As for math vs intuitive thought I'm inclined to mention Monsoor and Realest.

The mathematicians couldn't fathom the idea of dealing with Emeriti during the age. Unwinnable is the language, but we all know wolves don't take their kill in a frontal assault. It's coursing. I'm inclined to think some intuitives are in Emeriti anyways based in the defeat of BB after b2b crown ages and in solid shape. There are historic innovators in there. Obviously they know the math; their the best in the game.

[khronosschoty]

I respectfully disagree, Persain. It's the fact that you have to do it. You're a fine strategist I grant you, but I function in environments with none of your signature benefits. There is no lockstep strat on my kingdoms part, but we have faced lockstep strats. I'm not naive to gigantic waves run properly. I've been the leadoff elf mystic, the big ass orc, the big ass avian, the big ass undead guy... And I studied the flaws.

I visit the bigs to see and update the viability of my tactics, maybe on a 7 age cycle. I test run them, the last vs FS, and dissect the outcome. You can always debate the worth of something in the context of your use for it, but I contend my use is every bit as relevant and not your cup of tea. You do know I never attack or steal unprovoked? I don't ring up massive science from learns or honor out of war. Everything I do I do in war. I face full blown attackers based in the tried and true meta that so many do. The ones you run.

Anyone can be chained, Persain. The art is in changing the meta. I'm supposed to be on zero, but I'm not. That's stalling. Secure your top? My endeavor is to secure mine. I retain range when the runes run low. Your next question was about thieves and the answer is yes.

As for math vs intuitive thought I'm inclined to mention Monsoor and Realest.

The mathematicians couldn't fathom the idea of dealing with Emeriti during the age. Unwinnable is the language, but we all know wolves don't take their kill in a frontal assault. It's coursing. I'm inclined to think some intuitives are in Emeriti anyways based in the defeat of BB after b2b crown ages and in solid shape. There are historic innovators in there. Obviously they know the math; their the best in the game.

I find what you call the intuitive player encouraging.. keep up the good work!

[citadela01]

Thanks for the congrats, prot.


Agree it didn't change course of conflict but it's based on principal and what's considered ethical and what's not. You can't be in an alliance with Pyro/BB/FS and give each other resources for your fights, regardless of how much. It's not right. I didn't have a conversation with you after it happened but have heard hints and posts online that initially you were asked for acres rather than Gc - is that true? If in the old days Abs gave each other gold or land before their fights with Bb//Dreams/Sonata etc the community wouldn't have really allowed that.

The other fundamental issue is why is there an alliance between 3 top kds (or some agreement to not fight each other) when there are only 2 other conpetitors and given age that are not allied to each other. In the old days you'd have alliances being formed to counter other powerful alliances that exist here it's not necessary. Didn't CR just win 3 ages in a row without being part of any alliance whatsoever? Would be great if we could get an explanation on the need for an alliance or making deals with kds to not hit each other at all?

Mind if I take a shot at this ?

I dont think its right to judge (no pun intended) relations between bb/pyro/fs on principles applied to abs and other alliances of old.
We are loosely connected by friendship and that pretty much sums it up.

Personally I found our relations to be a burden this age, as we we couldnt tax them for land like you did. In previous ages this wasnt the case for us, but I imagine it was for bb/pyro.
This was esp obvious when u taxed them 8k or so land just before our conflict.

Abs and other alliances regularly blocked for their own KD's as you are very well aware I am sure.
In the last 3 ages, 4 if you count this one, there was no instances when we blocked for eachother.

You yourself mentioned how we didnt wanted to fight you yr2, but fact of the matter is that was best position we had in comparison to you this age. Had we done that we would 99% take few of your banks down at the very least, and BB would be in prime position to win the age by engaging you oow.

We benefit from relationship when there is dealbreak, gb attempt and the likes ... but as far as charting go its a burden to all 3 KD's.

[Bart of Sparta]

Mind if I take a shot at this ?

I dont think its right to judge (no pun intended) relations between bb/pyro/fs on principles applied to abs and other alliances of old.
We are loosely connected by friendship and that pretty much sums it up.

Personally I found our relations to be a burden this age, as we we couldnt tax them for land like you did. In previous ages this wasnt the case for us, but I imagine it was for bb/pyro.
This was esp obvious when u taxed them 8k or so land just before our conflict.

Abs and other alliances regularly blocked for their own KD's as you are very well aware I am sure.
In the last 3 ages, 4 if you count this one, there was no instances when we blocked for eachother.

You yourself mentioned how we didnt wanted to fight you yr2, but fact of the matter is that was best position we had in comparison to you this age. Had we done that we would 99% take few of your banks down at the very least, and BB would be in prime position to win the age by engaging you oow.

We benefit from relationship when there is dealbreak, gb attempt and the likes ... but as far as charting go its a burden to all 3 KD's.

BB wouldn't be able to engage as they weren't competing for anything this age. I'd say the biggest Oscar this age goes to them.

[Regular Joe]

Oscar for best drama goes to Spartans hands down though :)

[Shai]

Agree not taking cow land would have made it a closer fight now, iit was the reason we done it. We had only 48h notice after the FS-Panda Y6 fight and there was a 0% chance for FS to win had we noticed them. We had no incentive to not notice them other than try To create good will and not force kds into unwinable fights with 8 weeks still left in the age. But that does not mean we would make a silly cf and cede all the advantages we worked hard all age to obtain.

Yeah the 48h notice you had with FS-Panda pretty much got u the age there unless something really weird would happen. You got a superior position, could force a CF for cow acres which ultimately gave you the win in this war as there was no way for FS to close that cow acre gap. Well actually a war vs the U where they gained equal or more acres plus put ALOT on their cows could have made the fight closer as well. But I still think ur cows would had been to strong sci and gc wise.

In conclusion: Getting a superior position early is sooo important as it allows u to dictate the whole age from there unless u slip up. In you case the position year 6 was crushial.

[Sheister]

In conclusion: Getting a superior position early is sooo important as it allows u to dictate the whole age from there unless u slip up. In you case the position year 6 was crushial.

...because no one will give anyone close to you a fight that could enable them to catch up. Ergo, the age is over by week 2.

[Shai]

...because no one will give anyone close to you a fight that could enable them to catch up. Ergo, the age is over by week 2.

Yes because there are too few kds whoring. The less players and competition, the earlier the age is decide cause there is to few kds to ladder yourself up with later in age. Cut the explore pool growth in half and you must fight more for land, and to stay on top, cause as soon as you hit the whore cap others will catch up sooner. Also with alot less pool its more rewarding to war more to add on cow acres in war. Right now with all that pool its to easy to build tons of big ub cows and t/ms when you are on top and never risk losing the pool you have used. It makes no sense to have so much pool with so much less players today.

[Judge]

Well nobody mentioned the troop losses that fs had. I dont know the exact number but we ourself were amazed with the number of troop kills.

[Bart of Sparta]

...because no one will give anyone close to you a fight that could enable them to catch up. Ergo, the age is over by week 2.

Major problem there is non-competing KDs getting big. They take away targets from those getting big yet due to their CF structure do not engage in conflict with anyone. And on top of that 3 out of the 6 or 7 whoring KDs wouldn't fight either.

Sheister, your KD itself is also at fault for part of it. By not allowing us to B2B through intra-razing you forced us to deal with Emeriti having like 8-10 ospa on our fae and no time to retrain anything within 72 hours. It would've even been fine to simply get a CF up with us once the war ended. Then we would've had 3 days EOW CF + 4 days notice to prep and fight emeriti, perhaps beating them or at least slowing them for others to catch up. Now we were forced into a CF-structure that meant we had to keep giving land in order not to be farmed.

[Proteus]

Mind if I take a shot at this ?

I dont think its right to judge (no pun intended) relations between bb/pyro/fs on principles applied to abs and other alliances of old.
We are loosely connected by friendship and that pretty much sums it up.

Personally I found our relations to be a burden this age, as we we couldnt tax them for land like you did. In previous ages this wasnt the case for us, but I imagine it was for bb/pyro.
This was esp obvious when u taxed them 8k or so land just before our conflict.

Abs and other alliances regularly blocked for their own KD's as you are very well aware I am sure.
In the last 3 ages, 4 if you count this one, there was no instances when we blocked for eachother.

You yourself mentioned how we didnt wanted to fight you yr2, but fact of the matter is that was best position we had in comparison to you this age. Had we done that we would 99% take few of your banks down at the very least, and BB would be in prime position to win the age by engaging you oow.

We benefit from relationship when there is dealbreak, gb attempt and the likes ... but as far as charting go its a burden to all 3 KD's.

I have not been around the past 3 ages (and much beyond that) but from this age can tell that you guys did not "alliance play" as far as using your respective kingdoms to block others and "shake snd bake" your best positioned kingdom to the top. Blocking is a very hard concept, no one will ever block to lose as that involves a lot of self sacrifice, I've only seen a pure block happen perhaps 2x in my career. In an alliance it's ok for one kingdom to block as long as it fits in well with their goals - wanting to war the top and do well / get WWs but not necessarily dice all age and get a crown. In that situation a kingdom like that is fine to engage alliance enemies not with the goal of just stopping their growth at all costs but beating them since it fits into their goals but also helps the broader alliance. You don't really see someone enter a fight they would lose for the goal of slowing down the competition.

My personal stance on alliance right now is that should not exist and, to me, are a sign of weaknesses. There are a million threads about how little competition there is nowadays. Why when two of the main competitors are solo kingdoms and managed to win while being solo would the remaining 3 ally up? There is no big bad alliance to gb you guys. I honestly would be much happier to not see any alliances as it makes the top much more competitive and increases the number of fights a kingdom can have. When you have 3 kingdoms not fighting and say only 1 competitor it means the one competitor is getting put through b2b2b fights cause you guys got no one else to fight. With how small the game is, there is just no room for an alliance and makes me wonder what someone is afraid of that they want to be in one. I remember when Abs existed there was a powerful aabs alliance around most ages. Abs got smaller over the ages as competition shrank. I remember playing in the last ages of Abs it would be incredibly frustrating to sit on #1 all age and then some smaller kd farms out to HOH to grow past us and we did not have the ability to fight HOH to get back our position.

The other problem with how your alliance is defined basically allows you to turn an on / off switch with it. At one point you guys are all allied and at the next point it's "loosely" allied and you can give each other gc or acres. There is a problem with such an approach as it looks completely
Contrived as you can be allies when it benefits you and not be when it does not (I.e. One of your kds needs resources). Hope you see the problem with that approach.

I personally encourage you to stop being allies and compete with and fight each other. It's much better for the game and makes you guys look better as well. Since you all claim to be friendly with each other, in the event if any other kingdom were ever to wrong you, you could count on each other's help anyways.

[Anri]

The concept might be confusing for a few but what we see here is a MAP. Just that the term itself is almost long forgotten.

Mutual-Assistance Pact or Mutual-Aggression Pact.

Recent ages the diplomatic force of such pacts came into use when actioning other kds that ****played. Even if the MAP deals are not signed on paper we know who sticks up for who, it is pretty safe to assume this. Is there a need for it, sure, sometimes, last when Emeriti ****played right? ;-)

But they should def wave/war each other and compete, while the "pact" can remain. Such is the gameplay between most kds in the top either way.

[Bart of Sparta]

The concept might be confusing for a few but what we see here is a MAP. Just that the term itself is almost long forgotten.

Mutual-Assistance Pact or Mutual-Aggression Pact.

Recent ages the diplomatic force of such pacts came into use when actioning other kds that ****played. Even if the MAP deals are not signed on paper we know who sticks up for who, it is pretty safe to assume this. Is there a need for it, sure, sometimes, last when Emeriti ****played right? ;-)

But they should def wave/war each other and compete, while the "pact" can remain. Such is the gameplay between most kds in the top either way.

This pact should go without saying between all KDs wanting to compete for land, and not between a select group who only police each other. By all means we should've been GBed this age for what we've pulled off, the only reason we weren't was because of feyrplay and the distrust by other KDs of their motives.

There was a deeper reason behind the actions we've performed this age, and a lot of it was testing ground and morality of the other KDs. Turns out that no one gives a damn about policing unless it helps them, and feyrplay only polices KDs that mess with their specific goals.

[octobrev]