Sleeper kingdom for Age 53: Inzzolence

[gergnub]

You're both ghettos as you have no crowns

octo knows what he is talking about.

[Darkz Azn]

Odd, I think you have a question.

You have to dominate non-Abs crowns, dominate REM sleep, dominate ninja, or like Realest ... dominate retirement.

Why are you guys not phiwha?

You're welcome.

odd ... =) crowns are for nerds ...

[Wannes]

Anri is so easely pushed into defending self. I wonder why

[Anri]

Because i always stand up for my KD?

I can keep doing this forever =D

[Proteus]

Don't pick on Anri or I will join Simians and farm all of you ghettos out.

[the great kN herself]

I think you've all missed the point of the thread which was:

...
I also believe kN is onboard, and we all know she is the key ingredient of any winning kingdom. Check Pantheon as the most recent example
...

kN is crowning age 53.

[protector]

Don't pick on Anri or I will join Simians and farm all of you ghettos out.

Please do, bring them to greater hights like you have done with Rage! :)

ps. I have a crown, does that count?

[KuhaN]

Well, before you guys get further butthurt from my posts, I would like to say, imo, a kd like Dreamworks in my eyes performed better this round than a kd like Insolence, although they were higher up in the charts. And although WWs may be meaningless to many of you, it's a nice indicator to see who was the actual superior kingdom in the conflict.

To me, when kd A withdraws from kd B, it means that in the long run kd A would have lost acres, and kd B would've came out ahead. Although kd A did a "tactical withdraw" and came up a bit in acres, it does not mean that they are the actual superior kd, the kd with the WW is, and if the two kds warred each other a million times, the kd with the WW would come out ahead on acres in the long run. Also, a lot of players in the game don't do CEs on kds, or read the articles, so basically the only indication they get of superior kds is the little WW slot located on the kd page. A KD with 5/5 WWs in the top 10 basically means, to a lot of people, that the kd beat 5 other top 10 kds in that particular round. Now, if you guy's dont care about ghetto players opinions, or I'd say about 75% of the players in the game's opinions, then kudos, and keep doing what you're doing. Enjoy!

Now remember, this is just my opinion, no need to get upset kids. I already know that I'm a noob, and that you're "lawling" all over the place.

[Proteus]

Well, before you guys get further butthurt from my posts, I would like to say, imo, a kd like Dreamworks in my eyes performed better this round than a kd like Insolence, although they were higher up in the charts. And although WWs may be meaningless to many of you, it's a nice indicator to see who was the actual superior kingdom in the conflict.

To me, when kd A withdraws from kd B, it means that in the long run kd A would have lost acres, and kd B would've came out ahead. Although kd A did a "tactical withdraw" and came up a bit in acres, it does not mean that they are the actual superior kd, the kd with the WW is, and if the two kds warred each other a million times, the kd with the WW would come out ahead on acres in the long run. Also, a lot of players in the game don't do CEs on kds, or read the articles, so basically the only indication they get of superior kds is the little WW slot located on the kd page. A KD with 5/5 WWs in the top 10 basically means, to a lot of people, that the kd beat 5 other top 10 kds in that particular round. Now, if you guy's dont care about ghetto players opinions, or I'd say about 75% of the players in the game's opinions, then kudos, and keep doing what you're doing. Enjoy!

Now remember, this is just my opinion, no need to get upset kids. I already know that I'm a noob, and that you're "lawling" all over the place.

I always say when you are farming/owning a kingdom, there is no need for you to withdraw. I mean why withdraw when you are taking their acres, of course you are going to keep on doing it. Now there are some setups that can gain acres in a min-time fight and then have to withdraw to protect their gains which really isn't winning-thats a hit in run. When kingdom A is owning kingdom B and gaining tons of acres, then Kingdom B is going to be the one to withdraw - there is no need for Kingdom A to withdraw when it is the clear winner as in the case I just illustrated.

However, there are certain situations when say you are crowning but are in a war-mid age and your rivals are dicing. Of course the goal there is going to be to take as many acres as you can in the shortest time possible and end the conflict-you aren't going to stick it out for a 1 week war just to get a WW when your goal is #1 land. However, like I said before if you are farming your enemy in war there is no need to withdraw. Only time you withdraw when you know you cant sustain your efforts & will end up giving back all land (then its tactical to withdraw to keep what you earned, thus making your efforts worthwhile rather than warring for the sake of warring and having nothing to show for it) and the other reason would be when its an even matched war and your rivals are out dicing you while you are simply remaining static in war.

Hope that adds some perspective.

[stefan_e85]

why keep reminding them not to post locations, instead of ban them for doing so like what u did to my mate??? or are u just bias??:

Wierd? Rules dont apply same to people? I did get banned for 24h when I posted location... But when others do they just get a warning? Why so? I mean are we not all for being threated the same? No disrespect to you Just wnat to know why...

[Proteus]

Wierd? Rules dont apply same to people? I did get banned for 24h when I posted location... But when others do they just get a warning? Why so? I mean are we not all for being threated the same? No disrespect to you Just wnat to know why...

Dont trust the police, no justice no peace

[Palem]

*bans everyone for posting locations in a very coordinated secret code*

[protector]

Well, before you guys get further butthurt from my posts, I would like to say, imo, a kd like Dreamworks in my eyes performed better this round than a kd like Insolence, although they were higher up in the charts. And although WWs may be meaningless to many of you, it's a nice indicator to see who was the actual superior kingdom in the conflict.

To me, when kd A withdraws from kd B, it means that in the long run kd A would have lost acres, and kd B would've came out ahead. Although kd A did a "tactical withdraw" and came up a bit in acres, it does not mean that they are the actual superior kd, the kd with the WW is, and if the two kds warred each other a million times, the kd with the WW would come out ahead on acres in the long run.

As I said before that's very situational and also depends on a kingdoms preference, strategy and setup. If your setup doesn't support a long war, you should not stay in war too long. If you're getting beaten, you probably shouldn't stay in war too long either, unless your only goal is to get that +1. There have been plenty situations where a kingdom is loosing, but refuses to withdraw. Does that mean if you to a 'tactical withdraw', that you're just wding to save the acres?? What you say may apply to some wars, but dont put it down as if it is the case in every war, because its not.

If you take our war vs Sanctuary as example. We had 7 attackers on 10k+ acres and we prevented their cow from 4tapping every wave. Those 7 attackers where 'unbreakable' to any of their provinces.
Every wave our gains would increase; their core would max on ours, and on both sides we had lots of <6k provinces who where 2-4tapping eachother. Had we stayed in war those exchanges would continue, our 10k+ would continue growing from their 7k+ and their cow would continue growing also. In the end we would continue to get more acres, but we would give their cow a crown he does not deserve imo.

Say your kingdom wants to war kingdoms who are ranked top10. Say your kingdom is 120k acres, and the top10 ranges from 100-150k, then what's the point in stagnating in a war for days/weeks? Sometimes its just better to end one war so you can get another. I'd prefer 7 wars of 4 days each, over having 2 wars which both last 10 days. Again, kingdoms preferences here, so that might differ for you or others :)

A KD with 5/5 WWs in the top 10 basically means, to a lot of people, that the kd beat 5 other top 10 kds in that particular round.

What? So it is impossible a kingdom starts the age at say rank 100, then wars itself up throughout the age and ends on #8 with having a 5/5 war record? As far as I know, Dreamworks had 4/4 before they even reached top10.

[KuhaN]

As I said before that's very situational and also depends on a kingdoms preference, strategy and setup. If your setup doesn't support a long war, you should not stay in war too long. If you're getting beaten, you probably shouldn't stay in war too long either, unless your only goal is to get that +1. There have been plenty situations where a kingdom is loosing, but refuses to withdraw. Does that mean if you to a 'tactical withdraw', that you're just wding to save the acres?? What you say may apply to some wars, but dont put it down as if it is the case in every war, because its not.

If you take our war vs Sanctuary as example. We had 7 attackers on 10k+ acres and we prevented their cow from 4tapping every wave. Those 7 attackers where 'unbreakable' to any of their provinces.
Every wave our gains would increase; their core would max on ours, and on both sides we had lots of <6k provinces who where 2-4tapping eachother. Had we stayed in war those exchanges would continue, our 10k+ would continue growing from their 7k+ and their cow would continue growing also. In the end we would continue to get more acres, but we would give their cow a crown he does not deserve imo.

Say your kingdom wants to war kingdoms who are ranked top10. Say your kingdom is 120k acres, and the top10 ranges from 100-150k, then what's the point in stagnating in a war for days/weeks? Sometimes its just better to end one war so you can get another. I'd prefer 7 wars of 4 days each, over having 2 wars which both last 10 days. Again, kingdoms preferences here, so that might differ for you or others :)



What? So it is impossible a kingdom starts the age at say rank 100, then wars itself up throughout the age and ends on #8 with having a 5/5 war record? As far as I know, Dreamworks had 4/4 before they even reached top10.

Well the same goes for kds not running orcs, u cant think they performed worse because they didnt finish above you in the land charts. With your guys mentality just run solid orcs, or avians, and wd while ahead in acres, and then EoA cf if possible. To the second quote... it's not impossible obv, and thats one of the reasons a WW chart will be stupid. Anyways, fair enough with your reasonings.

[Bishop]

Wierd? Rules dont apply same to people? I did get banned for 24h when I posted location... But when others do they just get a warning? Why so? I mean are we not all for being threated the same? No disrespect to you Just wnat to know why...

You got a warning 20 posts before you broke the forum rules.

http://forums.utopia-game.com/showth...1#post15129550 <-- warning

http://forums.utopia-game.com/showth...1#post15131028 <-- infraction