Futbol shut your trap. It was Mayhem Incarnate and there were 50+ players in there.
And you kinda shooting yourself in the foot here because the stats you show state that you guys have 4.5x more players than Thermo, twice the points, twice the cities....
I have two comments about players supposedly "hiding" in VM, or "running into VM".Now this might be a personal anecdote but when I went on nearly a month of vacation in Thermopylae, we did not control 34, we did not control 35 and our presence in 33 was smaller than it is now. Take in mind as FutbolTango says we are an alliance that is focused on the four core oceans. This was one of the things when I joined Thermo that I was asked to do. Now I come back and we are dominating 34, have a strong grip on 35 (especially in the North) and essentially Control the SE quadrant of 33. When I try to attack some of the REPO players remaining in 34 they are either in vacation or running into vacation because jredge and others didn't let them sleep. Now you can say that Thermo picked the best from the core but don't forget the IA guys and other players who were originally based on the rim or the edge of the rim and fought their way inward. Out of the thirteen players we currently have over 950,000, 7 of them don't come from a core alliance (Includes IA players before the TE merge).
Fair criticism. Something we have been looking to work on.ATLANTIS- no need for two alliances should be one.
Please, please don't fall into Futbol's "if we can't have it, it must be irrelevant" style of thinking. While 52 might not be close enough to be a war ground, having oceans like that, away from the frontlines, will most likely be important for World Wonders. I also think that you possibly underestimate the mental strength of REPO players. We've seen alliances outgunned by larger teams or larger players before, and seen that they can hold out for a considerably long time (The Exiles, Mallorean Empire, possibly Diehards).REPO- A ton of their strength is based in "irrelevant" oceans like 52, need to focus on bringing their bigger guns to the fight or else jredge might rim every player they have in their SW half (he likely would already have done it if slots weren't so hard to get by in this slow world).
Yes unsurprisingly that is how you play grepolis by taking cities. Did you not know that?It has been like the battle of Stalingrand (the city was won room by room). Here we have been winning those oceans city by city.
Amazing how you guys revise history to fit your delusions. There was a two player alliance called Mayhem Reincarnated.
City Points Old player New player Old alliance New alliance Date
G.53.Area 7 6.054 847paul heavyeeee Mayhem Reincarnated Mayhem 2016-12-01 18:02:57
W Bon Grove 6.890 nvieira HBonPapi Mayhem Reincarnated Mayhem 2016-11-29 10:01:17
guys... come on...now I have to add you to list of historical negationism....Mayhem was never a coherent alliance this is why it disbanded...mayhem was a bit better than Imperium conglomerate, Heroes, Repo, Carpe Diem and the like unsuccessful alliances. This is why it came to an end.I did not need to 'revise history' to find that out, I remember that from when I was the diplomat of the Academy Alliance of Virdians. If I remember rightly I spoke to TheAlgarvian about it though I may be wrong.
Anyway, you could find this out simply by reading some of the old top 12 threads here, no need to be a historian or spending hours to find this out.
Mayhem was a coherent team. It fought effectively against The Exiles (until it crossed it's ally ITM and absorbed the remains of Exiles), and was a pretty good crew. If you are criticising the organisation of Mayhem, you are criticising your own current leadership. Furthermore, it did not disband. The biggest and most active players quit, formed a new alliance, and left the rest of the players out in the cold.guys... come on...now I have to add you to list of historical negationism....Mayhem was never a coherent alliance this is why it disbanded...mayhem was a bit better than Imperium conglomerate, Heroes, Repo, Carpe Diem and the like unsuccessful alliances. This is why it came to an end.
guys... come on...now I have to add you to list of historical negationism....Mayhem was never a coherent alliance this is why it disbanded...mayhem was a bit better than Imperium conglomerate, Heroes, Repo, Carpe Diem and the like unsuccessful alliances. This is why it came to an end.
Yes, he was. He is a great leader, but there were other leaders and other players who were pulling the alliance back. I am glad that they decided to make Thermopylae. It has become a formidable alliance.Lmao your 'glorious leader' TheAlgarvian was one of the leaders of Mayhem, I remember talking to him and have messages to prove it.
....my friend Kal... .Thermopylae was the necessary evolution from Mayhem....The Alga is a very good leader. It was a good decision on his part and the other the formation of Thermo.An alliance's coherence is in great part the responsibility of the leaders, as they are the ones meant to organise the team and keep them united. So by saying that Mayhem was not a coherent alliance, you are insulting the leadership abilities of those who led Mayhem. Having seen Al's attitude to leadership on Selymbria, I would agree with your accidental criticism of him.
....my friend Kal... you have serious issues
I have never said it wasn't. Although you can't claim to be the white knights of the world when you just ditched a bunch of your players out in the cold.Thermopylae was the necessary evolution from Mayhem
So a very good leader neglects their role until they are at risk of being replaced, do they? Because that is exactly what TheAlgarvian did on Selymbria. He was defence coordinator in Pandora. Within days of joining Pandora, I was asked by the founders to step up and help TheAlgarvian with defence, because he wasn't doing anything. I set up an LTS scheme, and as soon as Al saw that he had a threat to his role (I achieved more in 3-4 days of being in leadership than he had in several weeks), he tried to set up a different scheme to get attention, which he then neglected as well. That doesn't sound like the behaviour of a great leader to me. Nor does attempting to manipulate and control your pact mates, which is what he tried to do to both REPO and HEROES on this server.The Alga is a very good leader.
That says something about your Grepolis experiences, to be honest. I can't think of any category where Thermopylae is the best compared with other alliances I have been in or fought against, and given I have only been playing for a few servers, that says something.In my experience, this is the best alliance that I have been.
View attachment 12226
(Credit to Notmad.)
I have never said it wasn't. Although you can't claim to be the white knights of the world when you just ditched a bunch of your players out in the cold.
So a very good leader neglects their role until they are at risk of being replaced, do they? Because that is exactly what TheAlgarvian did on Selymbria. He was defence coordinator in Pandora. Within days of joining Pandora, I was asked by the founders to step up and help TheAlgarvian with defence, because he wasn't doing anything. I set up an LTS scheme, and as soon as Al saw that he had a threat to his role (I achieved more in 3-4 days of being in leadership than he had in several weeks), he tried to set up a different scheme to get attention, which he then neglected as well. That doesn't sound like the behaviour of a great leader to me. Nor does attempting to manipulate and control your pact mates, which is what he tried to do to both REPO and HEROES on this server.
That says something about your Grepolis experiences, to be honest. I can't think of any category where Thermopylae is the best compared with other alliances I have been in or fought against, and given I have only been playing for a few servers, that says something.
Actually, anyone with any sense of honour would have issues with Jimbobicus, after his actions on this server. Interestingly enough, I have today been informed that Jim is no longer a member of Thermopylae leadership. I wonder why?Well, with every post it is becoming more clear that you have previous issues with the leadership of Themopylae.
You think I would want to join?From seeing your stats, you would not have made the cut.
1) We might have to agree to disagree. You might not like the leadership of Thermopylae (The Alga, Jim, Del, etc), but I do. I do like them very much, and I respect and appreciate the work that they do. Of course, our size in the game and experience is quite different (you are below 10% of my size), once you get to this level you might understand why I think that they are great.Actually, anyone with any sense of honour would have issues with Jimbobicus, after his actions on this server. Interestingly enough, I have today been informed that Jim is no longer a member of Thermopylae leadership. I wonder why?
As for Al, I have proof that he isn't the great leader you claim he is. Whenever I have criticised your leaders in the past, you have said that I wouldn't know unless I played with them. I have now played in the same team as Al, and know that he isn't anywhere near as good as you claim he is.
You think I would want to join?
For the record, my stats show a significantly better story than yours. Despite the fact that I haven't had much frontline fighting in months, my BP ranking is way above my points ranking. Meanwhile, despite all these supposedly great battles you have been in, your BP ranking is way below your points ranking. It shows that you are good at simming, but it's not very good evidence for you being a great fighter, is it? Especially when we consider that I have spent most of this server sniping rather than stacking, which doesn't yield as much BP. If you want proof of that, just ask some of the players in HEROES, if you won't believe my own teammates.
Oh, and if our alliances are that bad and our territory is that irrelevant, would you mind explaining why your leaders attempted to poach Tigger and Co? Unfortunately for you, she has a value called loyalty.
I actually know nothing about Del, and have no personal criticism of him (although I don't think the diplo with REPO was handled very well, given that Thermo players promptly broke the supposed waiting period NAP after only a few days). Simple977 is someone I would actually have a good deal of respect for. And the fact that Jim is no longer a leader is hopefully a positive step for Thermo leadership.1) We might have to agree to disagree. You might not like the leadership of Thermopylae (The Alga, Jim, Del, etc), but I do. I do like them very much, and I respect and appreciate the work that they do. Of course, our size in the game and experience is quite different (you are below 10% of my size), once you get to this level you might understand why I think that they are great.
WW is basically a contest at who can sim the best. I'll play it, but that's simply because the choices are to play it, or let someone else play it without contest. Unless people are having some good battles over the WW islands, it will probably be the most boring period of the server.2) You would be the lowest ranked in the alliance (aside an internalized and special case). You might not be of much help during WW. Even if you are highly skilled, your small size is likely to make an insignificant impact in large battles.
And here come the excuses. If you were such a great fighter, you'd have a BP ranking much closer to your points ranking.Yes, my lower BP ranking is deliberately lower than my point ranking.
This basically implies that you are very good at simming, and avoid any battle unless you know it is in your favour. Which means that you probably aren't the best teammate to rely on in a tough situation.I do look for efficiency ratios in battles, resource production and point and city acquisition.
It may help with WW, but being a big player means nothing if you don't pull your weight in the wars your alliance is fighting.The bigger and the more efficient that I am the more that I can help the alliance in the long run.
Then will you kindly please stop posting PnPs about specific battles? You also just invalidated your claim that the failed attempt to take a specific city was the greatest loss of the server, as according to you, battles are not the most important aspect of wars in this game.Perhaps one day you will come to realize the importance of this approach. Wars are not military conflicts, but resource/political/diplomatic conflicts.
So you'd try poaching someone that you have continually insulted as a poor leader and as being from an irrelevant alliance. You don't wrongfully insult and accuse players, and then think they will jump ship to you.3) I would invite Tigger and Co. He/she has a good size. I think that she would have more fun with us.
Once again, you resort to personal attacks to try and make your point. I might be a smaller player, and have less game experience than you, but that doesn't make my point invalid. You seem either unable or unwilling to accept the flaws I have pointed out in your leadership, even though I have provided evidence, and you claim to be a believer in facts. I've been in an alliance much more professional and elite than Thermopylae, so I know what a great alliance and great leadership looks like.1) It is clear that we disagree on the issue of Thermopylae's leadership. It think that they are great, and I enjoy very much what they do. As a smaller and less experienced player, it is evident that you will never be able to appreciate what makes them great.
This is completely wrong. WW didn't even exist in Grepolis at first, so the original essence of the game was a focus on fighting, which is what draws myself and a lot of other players to the game. World Wonders is an endgame that many players, including a lot of veterans, believe contradicts the nature of the rest of the game.2)If you do not like it, then you do not like or truly understand Grepolis.
Actually, this is a bit of a fallacy. A good strategy for most of the server doesn't always equal a good result for WWs. You can be a team of the best fighters on the server, winning every war that you fight, and still lose if a load of other teams decide to hug each other and build one set of WWs and rotate for the crown.This is when you see if your planning and strategy during the previous months was a good one.
This is wrong as well. There are counters to sniping, but they are not fool-proof, and anti-sniping tactics often fall apart if the defender realises what you are doing. Sniping is a tactic that allows smaller players to hold their own versus larger players in a way that stacking doesn't.3) Yes, I understand how sniping works, and I also understand well how to beat it with ease. This is why I rarely use it. If you are against good or experienced players, then sniping become ineffective.
I would say that you are highly inefficient in terms of fighting: your size means that, purely from a logistical point of view, you have the possibility to be one of the most powerful fighters of the server. However your BP ranking is poor for your size, which means that you are inefficient at converting your size and strength into good fighting. And you avoided my point: sniping is one of the least efficient ways of gaining BP because, if you get it right, you are only going to be fighting against CS waves. Given that most people tend to send only 1 or 2 CSs, you aren't going to get much BP. I snipe rather than stack, often because I have had no choice. If I can have a better amount of BP for my size with sniping (the least productive way of gaining BP), then how do you have so poor an amount of BP for your size, given that you supposedly focus on efficiency? Also, your approach to the game only works if you can rely on having other people do all the fighting for you. If everyone on your team had an attitude like that, you'd crumple in days, each expecting someone else to fight the tough battles for you.4) Your assessment of battle points is based on one approach to the game. I use a different one, which is based on efficiency. The one that I use giver a higher probability of winning the game at the end.
Most players do all to a decent extent. The most common imbalance in good players is whether they prefer offence or defence, but they are usually as good at fighting as they are at building. A strategy such as yours, where you focus on building and let others do most of the fighting for you, falls down if you there is ever a situation that you can't cry to your teammates for help.5) Like in a soccer team, the winning team is the ones that has all kind of players (defenders, attackers, planners, builders, etc). What I do, I do well.
You take things to the extreme. If someone values loyalty, you call them dogmatic. It actually shows that you have little regard for loyalty, and makes people less likely to want to be your teammate in the future. Your alliance tries to poach high-profile players from their enemies rather than fight them. But not everyone agrees with Thermopylae's attitude to the game, not everyone thinks you are the best alliance, and certainly not everyone thinks that it is perfectly rational to betray their teammates.6) You might be surprised. Some people are very rational as supposed to dogmatic. There is no doubt that Thermopylae is the alliance that most likely will win the server. If she wants to win the server, she will have to join Thermopylae.
If it came down to having the respect of other players, and having a crown, I would choose respect any day. A crown would be nice, but I won't compromise my morality in order to get one. If I wanted the easy route, I would have joined jumped ship to HEROES when they offered it, about 2 weeks into our war against them. But I chose to stay with my teammates and play honourably, rather than ditch my teammates and chase a crown like a child chases an ice cream van.I am sorry to tell you but you will never win a crown with your approach.