Shrug, maybe you did and you planned to just give it up. That's certainly possible, though a bit surprising.Quote:
Originally Posted by citadela01
Printable View
Shrug, maybe you did and you planned to just give it up. That's certainly possible, though a bit surprising.Quote:
Originally Posted by citadela01
Do people really need MORE reasons to never want to go to war from a disadvantaged position in this game. Now the meta will be "Run all heavy attackers, max gain the other kd for 48h, WD, then farm all the honour and sci they got from the win afterwards" Seems like a healthy meta. It used to be that you would war a kingdom, lay everything out, then afterwards you shake hands and go after other kingdoms.. I personally don't even op/steal or learn/plunder an enemy kingdom after we have warred them in an age. Maybe I'm just weird like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zauper
We also came out ahead in acres in our other wars, so you can't really say our strategy is built around losing acres. That was just a way that we won that war. Just making the best out of the situation we were dealt.
Thanks Angels!Quote:
Originally Posted by Meep
There was nothing we could do to stop it, also call it a test of character if you will. We were interested to see if they wave us or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zauper
its quite naive to say they are going for a 'long term win', obviously they are only trying to mend their ego which was only hurt because of their big mouth.. we are only helping them by letting them win as big as possible here, so they can finally satisfy themselves as the winner, and move on..Quote:
Originally Posted by Zauper
So far for the respect I had after the great war we fought, guess that was not mutual respect. I'm sorry to see you got so butt hurt over your loss, next time remember what Utopia is about: Strategy RPG for Hardcore Players. Guess not everyone is Hardcore these days. In a way I feel honoured, enjoy your acres and honour, FREAAKS only care about WW.
who the hell is freaaks?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorash
Darn AC.. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by LoRD_SaMPuaN
2Utopian - Sorry but not sure what you are on about? I asked a legitimate question as I know FS & Pyro are/was friends, im not sure why you would do a round 2 vs a kingdom you are friends with, that is obviously not interested by the looks of it, so I asked if it was revenge for losing (as in dragging war for ages to turn tides, when pyro players seemed to assume it was game over and wanted the wd).
I'm really not sure what your issue with my post was 0_o
Thanks for that astounding strategy explanation Zauper :p, not what I was on about though, it's a given any KD holding their own will be able to WD acres up at minimum time, has been like that last 5/10 ages when warring FS, their strategy/setup lays in long wars.
I agree with Zauper 100%. Or as Jeb! said, you have to be willing to lose the primary to win the general. Please clap.
Oh, is this what utopia is about now? Lose a war, hold grudge because got beaten, waste everyone involved's time because it wasn't like they were crying about us wasting their time on a legit war? Yeah, clap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Band of Horses
If you win and come out weaker why should you be protected from someone stronger? There is no rule against them unlimited waving you, it's been done.Quote:
Originally Posted by yuuume
Different kd's have different goals? It seems that the state FS had pyro in with their war win put pyro in a bind as far as potential goals for the rest of the age. They opted to use some advantage to gain back what they felt was taken from them in war (honor/science). It's within their right to do so if FS was unable to work out some cf agreement during eowcf.Quote:
Originally Posted by yuuume
Most of the time the winner of the war is in a stronger position to force some type of cf, however, in the case where you win severely smaller against a kd with merchants, using the eowcf as a time to pump and reengage is very much part of the game. Tactical withdrawals for pump and reengage has been around for quite some time.
This is a tricky situation. On the one hand you have the whore- (and historically also the war-) tiers imperative that no conflict is over until both parties says it is (more often than not, that means until EoA). The goal is to win the age, not to contend with a simple war win. B2B is strategy, and a legit one. Always has been. On the other you have the warring tier having long surrendered the growth meta, and in so doing changed the war meta in its tier. Wars are no longer played for profit, but for winning another point on the score board. These two metas mix poorly...
FS "loose acre" strategy (zaupers simplification) can only rule supreme in a game where growth charts, future positioning, long term oow strategy is nullified in favor of a meta where nothing in the game matters, but the current and ongoing war. The game essentially resets after each war, and age ends are merely a way to tally the score. Think of that as you will. I find the game to be more enjoyable both to play and observe with added complexity - and the "new" wartier meta to be rather dull. But that's me.
The meta has, no matter what I think of it, changed though. I suspect more players will think of Pyro as the bad ones here. Since that's how most of the war kingdoms have played it in quite some time now.
So you could argue that Pyro, not playing in the whore tier this age, should adhere to the wartier meta and admit defeat as the wartier sees it. Or you could argue that Pyro being a child of both tiers, acknowledges the added complexity open ended conflicts brings and wants to introduce that to the war-tier, to the benefit of all(?) ;) Or you could argue Pyro fought FS on FS terms and failed badly, and had to resort to a meta to which they are better versed.
Lesson to be learned here: if playing under a meta with severe restrictions, put it in writing if you want it to stick. Different kingdoms, different ways to play. Perhaps FS should have signed a "no b2b" clause....
If this would be the best way to profit long term, this would be the composition of the whore kingdoms. It is not, so it is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmiedema