Rage had an incentive to w/d before BIO lapped them again, which would have happenned within 24h of mintime.Originally Posted by jdorje
Rage had an incentive to w/d before BIO lapped them again, which would have happenned within 24h of mintime.
Yes, you beat us. And having won that war, surely you would have preferred if you'd gotten another 4 hours of free hits out of it.
But that's not what flogger means. You guys have a strong warring setup, that wouldn't stand up to "top play" i.e. competing for top5 land. If we wanted a top20 warring setup I would have done something rather different from orc. However sanc's poor setup choices in several recent ages (undead two ages ago, and our insistence on not playing merchant every single age despite being clearly the best) does perhaps contradict flogger's claims!
You're wrong; I don't consider war wins meaningless. Many times sanc has stayed in war indefinitely to secure a win, including two wins over inzo last age. Sometimes people say "we won the war even though we withdrew" - this is simply incorrect. You can't redefine what "winning" means because the game already defines it - it's when you win. It's a shame that the game rewards losing, however, or more people would care about winning.
As for the kingdoms that want to land drop so that they can farm ghettos - shame on them.
I dont think any1 disputes top KD's can war ... by the virtue of activity alone they are considered good in this time of utopia history and ofc they have some tricks up their sleeves.
But to say no1 out of top 10 has a chance in war vs top whoring KD's is just plain wrong. Even if you ignore all other factors the fact is there are many former top players in warring KD's who just gave up on whoring and are in no way inferior players to those remaining in nw kd's.
Its not setup issue alone either no matter how much some ppl would like to think it is. There are very few really good and really active warring KD's, but those few you can at best fight on even terms if you pick proper setup and thats all, they know their stuff.
I know some nw kd's took an age to war over the past few ages and it wasnt walk in the park for them allways ... most of the time yes ... but not all the time.
as far as ww's go I really do agree its bad that game awards well timed loss in equal fights ... but thats the way system works atm so we gotta adopt to it. Personally I like ww's but arent dead set on them ... I consider win if I take what other KD wants most out of the conflict ... be it land, honour or ww it doesnt really matter to me.
May+June papers:
** Summary **
Total attacks made: 193 (32,493 acres)
-- Traditional march: 181 (32,417 acres)
-- Ambush: 1 (76 acres)
-- Conquest: 5 (295 acres)
-- Failed: 6 (3.1% failure)
-- Uniques: 95
Total attacks suffered: 222 (28,700 acres)
-- Traditional march: 194 (26,591 acres)
-- Ambush: 22 (2,109 acres)
-- Massacre: 1 (5,385 population)
-- Failed: 5 (2.3% failure)
-- Uniques: 104
Activity has picked up on both sides...a little. Sanc continues to be slightly winning. Chaining is limited because Sanc's inferior military can only single-tap, while many of simians' hitters are out of range.
Go pick a warring setup then and proove us wrong. Oh right last time you guys did so (ud/mystics) you went 1-6 or so vs these silly ghetto warring kd's .... Less talking more actual results would be nice.
you could also grow up to the top and war them to prove them wrong...just saayin
He's got a point.
you made an account just to say that? :P Anyway most of the warring kd's don't have any intention to dice since they find it boring. And since we're the "inferior kd's" the least thing they could do is beat us at our field x). Moreover if you get stuck in wars that take 4-5 days and you do this a few times every age you won't get close enough to prove them wrong.
no i should have more posts from the past idk whatsup with that but havnt been on forums too much, but would be fun to see this dispute of warring kds vs top kds settled! fun for me to watch anyways :D... yeah true but you could avoid war for first bit of age and be their size without having to dice... yes they could also drop down to your grounds but i cant see a topkd taking the time to do that just to prove you wrong maybe a kingdom later in the age who cant crown if your in range i guess...but also cant you win a war by min time? thats how it works with most top kds it seems...
They couldnt do it even if they wanted to, its just an excuse they hide behind "We think its boring"Anyway most of the warring kd's don't have any intention to dice since they find it boring.
"Whoring kd's use their inferior setup as an excuse for losing wars, they couldn't even win if they wanted to", you can use that argument both ways i guess...
Afaik last time sanc went for a warring age they went 1-5 or 1-6? And their ud/myst strat proved great strategical insight.
well thats 1 kingdom who probably had activity issues as far as i can see?
saying warring kd's cant whore even if they want to is weak argument
who was it again that just passed rage on the charts despite all the leet players claiming they would farm out previous to the conflict ?? its warring KD if I am not mistaking ... I find it rather amusing that after all the smug comments made against bio early in the age they still dont receive recognition for anything they do ... now after war with rage all of the sudden warwin is what matters ???
srsly ppl ...
Didn't know dicing required a ton of skills? Please enlighten...
It's a shame that there's such a segregation between the 'whoring' and the 'warring' community. To put it in to perspective though, I've warred HaJ kd's that had better activity and more coordination than Rage did.
Am I saying those HaJ kd's are better than Rage? Surely not. But a good start would be to have the activity and coordination required to succeed given the right tactics.
Most KD's are only one leader shy from being good at both. Just look at Fury.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote