Best warring KDs

[octobrev]

Everyone has an equal opportunity every age to position themselves. Doesn't get more fair than that!

[Madchess]

that is why I said they are the best at maintaining a position where no one wants to war them.

[Swag]

Sprinkles

/thread

Thanks for playing

[Lestat]

We all start @ 400

[StratOcastle]

To my mind there are multiple factors that play their part. And I'm with the "everyone starts at 400" crowd though I might impress you otherwise.

I've always been intrigued by Feint and his ability to build contenders, quickly. A mechanically flawless war kingdom that underestimates behavioral meta will always lose to the likes of Feint. Behavioral meta played a part in the SWEA crown as well.

While most reputable war kingdoms/leaders understand diplomacy meta, many are victim to their predictable behavior when the stakes are high. Thus I recommend the advice: if it's too good to be true then it probably isn't.

I'll admit the heyday of chart shaping villainy has passed, but we shouldn't forget the old lessons if one is to consider being the best at war.

[khronosschoty]

Emeriti is not so impressive. FS is more impressive then they will ever be (conjecture but at the very least true up until now)

[Si_]

This all depends on your definition of "best warring" kingdom. If you say that is simply about from hostile to eowcf and who is best at that, I think you are missing a large part of what makes a good warring kingdom, and what the purpose of war in the game is. In my opinion, the purpose of war is to defeat enemies who are trying to take your resources, and to take resources from other kingdoms so that you can win the game.

"For some the art of war is destruction. War is not destruction, war is victory. If you can win victory without having to war your enemy, you have already won the war." - Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Firstly, for me, being a good warring kingdom starts in pre-age developing the right race/pers strategy and ratios. If you are playing a superior choice based on the new changes for the age, you are giving yourself an advantage in war, and winning wars is the point of having them in any strategic game.

Secondly, part of being able to war is positioning yourself before the fight, to try and maximise any advantages you have prior to the fight. If you can start a war with any kind of advantage, you would be a fool not to try to give yourself that edge.

Thirdly, once hostilities are initiated, it is about activity and unselfish play from the players, and good strategy and leadership of waves from your Monarch and Council.

Fourth, you need to have the ability to think both tactically to react to what your enemy is doing, but also strategically, to make sure your overall plans are being implemented.

That, in my opinion, is what makes the best warring kingdom. You can easily see that there are maybe 3-4 kingdoms that can make a claim to being able to do all those things in the current age. You'll know who is the best warring kingdom, because they are the ones that win the NW and Land crowns. And if you stay small to have lots of wars, you aren't proving yourselves against the best, you are just beating ghettos up, and farming for honour. The real wars, the ones that matter, are the ones fought to determine who wins the age, and it is those kingdoms that win those types of war, that can make the claim to be the best, as they are fighting the only wars that matter.

[octobrev]

Very well said! My only grievance is that 3-4 kingdoms is probably a bit generous.

[Pillz]

Fs, emeriti, mansoor's kd and maybe BB. That's 3 or 4

[Madchess]

which ones of those are Bobs your uncle? seems to have passed the fan favorite Em gee atleast for now

[octobrev]

"Mansoor's" aka Pandas

[Bry]

Everyone defining "best" but not offering kds.
Good thread.

[Pillz]

All kds suck, that's why. Listing 4 good ones is hard...

[the great kN herself]

Emeriti, BlameMod, Hipmunks, FS, Ronins


* Disclaimer: This list is in no particular order.

[Pillz]

Two ok kds and 3 ghettos