Re: JUKEBOX DECLARE WAR, and other unrelated nostalgia...
- Thread starter Dax
- Start date
- Status
LuckySports
Landscape Designer
19 people whos score is still less than the 7 attackers?
I don't think any Winning alliance in the past few rounds has put more than 5 people on a tick at this point in the game..
2/3/4.. sure 3 people is common enough.
19 people whos score is still less than the 7 attackers?
I don't think any Winning alliance in the past few rounds has put more than 5 people on a tick at this point in the game..
2/3/4.. sure 3 people is common enough.
We've never said we were any good. We're just idiots who follow bright lights.
Saying that though, we've stolen a butt-load of your land and lost nothing.... If we spread our 7 people over 2 targets, one would be defended easily. So therefore everyone gets land, everytime, as an alliance we get 1.5k a pop with no losses.
We look silly, but it's the best and only way we can really attack you.
I would agree with this but i think it's difficult for any alliance to do anything smart these days with so little people and such a stale alliance situation.
LuckySports
Landscape Designer
lol..
I understand what your saying Martin - but its one thing to want land w/o a fight, and another to then complain that you never get to fight anything (refering to Lafin ofc)
Then your debate should be at that individual. I haven't followed this whole thread, but I wanted to take the opportunity to justify (not defend/argue) why we attack and play as we are. You guys on the receiving end of it must see it constantly and think we're "noobs" - but stepping away from it and see it from our view-point, we can't do anything else.
For the 30 odd rounds I've played, I've always valued free land above all else, and as you keep giving it to us, we're playing the best way we can for our personal preservation and gain.
LuckySports
Landscape Designer
Then your debate should be at that individual. I haven't followed this whole thread, but I wanted to take the opportunity to justify (not defend/argue) why we attack and play as we are. You guys on the receiving end of it must see it constantly and think we're "noobs" - but stepping away from it and see it from our view-point, we can't do anything else.
For the 30 odd rounds I've played, I've always valued free land above all else, and as you keep giving it to us, we're playing the best way we can for our personal preservation and gain.
We see it and think.. "This is sad.."
I directed my comments at you because you said that 3-4 posts after Lafin commented on finally getting a fight (as if no one ever defends..)
Then your debate should be at that individual. I haven't followed this whole thread, but I wanted to take the opportunity to justify (not defend/argue) why we attack and play as we are. You guys on the receiving end of it must see it constantly and think we're "noobs" - but stepping away from it and see it from our view-point, we can't do anything else.
For the 30 odd rounds I've played, I've always valued free land above all else, and as you keep giving it to us, we're playing the best way we can for our personal preservation and gain.
We see it and think.. "This is sad.."
I directed my comments at you because you said that 3-4 posts after Lafin commented on finally getting a fight (as if no one ever defends..)
ah, well that's up to Lafin, my posts are just in response to what I have quoted.
Then your debate should be at that individual. I haven't followed this whole thread, but I wanted to take the opportunity to justify (not defend/argue) why we attack and play as we are. You guys on the receiving end of it must see it constantly and think we're "noobs" - but stepping away from it and see it from our view-point, we can't do anything else.
For the 30 odd rounds I've played, I've always valued free land above all else, and as you keep giving it to us, we're playing the best way we can for our personal preservation and gain.
I actually see it as a compliment but then i have always been weird
I never said no one ever defends. I was saying it was nice to finally have a semi-fair battle. Neither of us are stupid and we can pretty much see who is going to win a battle from the outright, so either we send a huge number of attackers and get free land, or there's too many defenders and we recall. For once there was a battle we both felt could be won (I don't know your reasoning for staying), but we both got to do some killing, which is what I like best.
LuckySports
Landscape Designer
That wasn't a fair battle I knew that before it tick.. Only stayed cause we were lazy.
There have been a few instances where it would have been a fair fight.. but we never got to see the numbers.
Most of the time its either, too many right off so we dont even bother, or we get plenty on to cover it. (which is basically what you just said..)
I knew that before it tick.. Only stayed cause we were lazy.There have been a few instances where it would have been a fair fight.. but we never got to see the numbers.
Most of the time its either, too many right off so we dont even bother, or we get plenty on to cover it. (which is basically what you just said..)
Dax
Hydroponics Developer
I've given the order to stay countless times knowing we would lose. What is there to really lose at all?
LuckySports
Landscape Designer
jerks..
I like battle!Honestly, you'd have see a lot more suicidal defense if my opinion was listened to more often..
I know we'll lose and stay anyway just cause the numbers are pretty ^_^LuckySports
Landscape Designer
considering your HUGE troop advantage, it doesn't take much imagination to figure it out
considering your HUGE troop advantage, it doesn't take much imagination to figure it out
3X troop score. Then count in the fact that our 2 biggest troop scores have no one in range. So 6 vs 19 with you firing first works out to be in your favour
well i know my alliance could cope with lucky in charge for a week ....but could jb deal with dax giving orders for a week
- Status