Top 12 Alliances Sink or Swim

DeletedUser

Guest
more troops are bad, more attacks are bad, i'll keep that in mind.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
if you massively recruit good players it means you have massive amounts of good players, bad thing?
depends on the time frame you look at it over. short term its very good thing, walk all over everyone, easy battles and you grow fast. long term, well you run out of targets fast, no good players to fight and everyone gets bored and ethier gets slack,fight each other or leave the game.

i think for the long term fun of this world having alot of the good players in 3 joined alliances is a bad thing but hay each to there own. everyone can do as they please.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I'm not saying the following is the case with the WARLORDS but;

Some players tend to look for safety in numbers. They don't join a certain alliance because of the leadership, the vision, the team work, they join them to feel safe. I'm not saying this goes for all the members in 'large' alliances. But as a 'large' alliance becomes bigger it becomes more challenging to monitor everyone and thus manage the alliance.
Making a large alliance efficient is not impossible, but it's not easy or common, it takes time and effort and of course good leadership.
 

DeletedUser41036

Guest
Where is the fun of the game if you own 50+% of the world at the begining stages?

Could have all allied as soon world was opened and stayed that way entire time. lol
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I think it a lot of fun being the underdog, there would be no point to the game if i was with the warlord, taking cities with superior numbers - just mundane.
A struggle to survive and grow - what a challenge :)
 

DeletedUser31057

Guest
if you massively recruit good players it means you have massive amounts of good players, bad thing?
Well, having massive players if you have experienced founders and leaders capable to plan, organize, control, monitor, and execute alliance activities is an advantage, however, once you overlooked and failed to lead them is disaster :D
 

DeletedUser29194

Guest
its still early days of this world , lets see in 6 months how it looks , teams and players will come and go , same as wars they will come and go , alliances will be made and broken , drama is still to unfold
 

DeletedUser

Guest
depends on the time frame you look at it over. short term its very good thing, walk all over everyone, easy battles and you grow fast. long term, well you run out of targets fast, no good players to fight and everyone gets bored and ethier gets slack,fight each other or leave the game.

i think for the long term fun of this world having alot of the good players in 3 joined alliances is a bad thing but hay each to there own. everyone can do as they please.
if you think they have a monopoly on anything you are mistaken, there are other. powers.
 

DeletedUser42982

Guest
if you think they have a monopoly on anything you are mistaken, there are other. powers.

Yeah but chanla, whilst i don't think that it would be a great challenge to bring the warlords down, it would take a massive, MRAish effort.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
if you think they have a monopoly on anything you are mistaken, there are other. powers.

no i didnt say that now did i. there are tonnes of players in this world and alot of good players that are not all heaped into 3 alliances. point is good players need other good players to fight for the long term health of the world. nothing more nothing less.
 

DeletedUser18223

Guest
yyyyaaawwwnnn!!!!(D)

guys are there no update on this top 12 so that there will be more interesting things to read?rather than putting all focus to warlords?


attachment.php
 

DeletedUser42982

Guest
yyyyaaawwwnnn!!!!(D)

guys are there no update on this top 12 so that there will be more interesting things to read?rather than putting all focus to warlords?


attachment.php

~ He says not posting a top 12
 

DeletedUser18223

Guest
lol cause i have no basis to start one and i will be bias if i created one though i will create one soon not for now :)

attachment.php
 

DeletedUser

Guest
the hating on warlords is quite apparent but for good reason! they are like the 'fat kid' at school recruiting peoples like they cake, recruiting there way to bliss, even if only HALF of there players are decent active players they will be hard to dislodge with sheer numbers of fatty cakey sugary nukes, seriously these guys could just stock up on biremes and nukes and even breakthrough wont be a great use. i think this world lacks in active players
 

DeletedUser37919

Guest
We will see how things go its hard to have alot of skimmers in a ally. :O)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
i like how warlords have 'VERY LIMITED' under recruitment, warlords A have 'selective for our needs' well that must mean your needs aren't very selective and warlords b have simply 'Recruitment: Closed' you guys have like 230 players… say wha
 
Top