Printable View
I feel its safe to say Pyro threw this by beeing greedy.
They didnt bothered to finish chaining tm's and were too focused on gains to deepchain our core.
Not sure why, mbe they thought they couldnt loose at that point, or they just underestimated our will to fight the odds.
Either way they gave us way back into the war after that botched hostile and we took it.
What was the starting NW and acres before hostile
Why is whoring seen as step up? I've always thought it was boring and it is more fun playing for war wins. is there some type of elite game changing strategy required to whore vs 3 other kds?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tadpole
Of course warring the best warring kingdoms is a step up. And the best warring kingdoms are the whore kingdoms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xeronate
i'm courious, did they tried to raze builds - go in range/start drake/build out of range their 3 big dwarves? at one point when i looked at kd pages they we're able to do so by razing 30-40% on each, at some others 50-60% etcQuote:
Originally Posted by LoRD_SaMPuaN
but i have no idea if they tried it and you coutered or they just had dwarves with full build/in const all time.
they havent tried it but we were aware of the possibility.. they didnt have gc to immediately fund it, and it was only their income who kept some of their provs alive.. we could also raze any of them at will, so once they get that close in nw, we would start our own dragon in a few hours too (dw buildings take 12h to get back to previous nw value, so they would be only slightly above range after the trick).. regardless though, i would definitely try that if i were them..Quote:
Originally Posted by dreaku
they could of delayed you further by timing builds across the kd to come in next tick, but yeah, just a delay. but that would be just a secondary objective more important would of been the start of a drag since, from what i read around, they had more econ ...Quote:
Originally Posted by LoRD_SaMPuaN
Seeing growth as boring is fine. But it's still a step up. The warring kingdoms don't go for growth because they know they can't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xeronate
If the top 3 kingdoms got mehuled the "war" kingdoms will no doubt try to land crown.
And yes, the elite game changing strategy is playing a full age instead of just a few days at a time.
Pyro would have had dragon advantage once back in range, which would have happened soon. But how much good would that do?
We had good eco going also, so dragon would fly both ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andurilas
If FS and CR warred on similiar acres, NW and honour then FS would win hands down I think. CR would obviously destroy FS at growth. But FS enjoy warring too much to distract themselves with growth, and Godly appears too self-important to be a warring KD for an age, so it will never happen. It's two separate goals so any attempt to compare to two is futile really.
It is obvious the majority prefer warring. It's like warring is soccer and growth is american football - the USA think american football is the one true football, whereas the rest of the world just doesnt really give a **** about it and plays soccer. Sure CR might win the superbowl, and everyone might care for a day, but then it will be back to enjoying soccer.
Where were all these kingdoms that can supposedly destroy us 4 rounds ago when I was leading CR and ran over the entire war tier?
Oh, I remember. They were all in utalk crying over how we're bullies.
I will be very, very clear about this: We get 0/1 war wins round after round because people refuse to war us unless they absolutely have to (for the round win). The round in question, we got 3 or 4 war wins because we literally forced every single kingdom into warring by max meter. If people refused to hit back, I ordered people to raze them over and over again until they changed their tune.
Despite all of the crap that Bishop and Palem give me, that round must have given them the biggest "this is how utopia is meant to be played" boners of all time.
Your superbowl analogy is incorrect. You are in the minor league, we are in the major league. If our paths cross, you have very little chance of survival.
short wars and FS - you got to be kidding - they always plan for the long run and they are superb doing so - should be common knowledge by now...
congrats for the win
According to you there is no league, just you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Godly
As with so many other kds, in our giraffes age, we offered FS war on similar acres, honor, and NW. They declined. Unlike many of the other kds, we did not opt to try to force them into war -- though we did war many of the top of the warring tier that age (or try to on similar acres/nw/honor).Quote:
Originally Posted by FATstrat
One of the issues with the war tier is their insistence on the appearance of a fair war that is actually slanted in their favor. Of course a kingdom with 11 t/ms on the same land as a kingdom running 5 is likely to be favored to win a long war -- they're setup better to hold acres over the long run and sustain econ/etc. Except, of course, if that pool happens to be concentrated on say 2 cows and 5 t/ms instead, the kd with 2 cows is favored to win. But also is likely to have significantly more land.
But in the basic consideration that you offer here, there's no understanding of this. So kds can never come to an agreement on 'what's fair'. This was one of the issues between ED and FS -- an inability for the two kds to agree on what a fair conflict between them would look like.