DeletedUser54495
Guest
Futbol shut your trap. It was Mayhem Incarnate and there were 50+ players in there.
DeletedUser54192
Guest
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....
The thing is, we aren't going around proclaiming our leaders as figures of legend. Futbol is. Also, the coalition, as the name implies, was a group of alliances that came together for a reason, rather than 1 alliance that has a huge number of branches.
I have two comments about players supposedly "hiding" in VM, or "running into VM".
- It is summertime at the moment - the most likely time for people to hit VM due to actually going on holiday.
- We could say the same about Thermopylae. Most of the northern players have completely turtled, or gone into VM (possibly due to pressure from REPO).
Also, Thermopylae took in a bunch of players from Western Order, if I remember correctly.
Fair criticism. Something we have been looking to work on.
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).
@Kannerak, @Ares8793, @FutbolTango:
Mayhem's 3rd branch was, to the best of my knowledge, a renaming of Infernal Abyss, to show that they had merged with Mayhem. So it was Mayhem, Mayhem Incarnate (Originally known as Havoc) and Im Telling Mayhem (originally known as Infernal Abyss). So while Kannerak and Ares are technically right about a 3rd Mayhem branch, it wasn't in addition to Infernal Abyss. Futbol, if you don't know about Mayhem Incarnate, you probably should have read some of this forum's previous threads before flooding it with your own threads.
@FutbolTango
The numbers do not lie, but they can be manipulated. You have taken around 650 cities from any of the alliances that make up the coalition, including inactives. Where did the other 1500 conquests come from? They certainly weren't from fighting the coalition (a few may have been from Heavenly Myrmidons before they were kicked from the coalition, but certainly not many). The coalition has not been a failure. A large number of your northern players have either turtled, or are in VM for whatever reason (some probably due to pressure from REPO, others probably due to RL). Some of your players, such as your idol Jimbobicus, have slipped in the rankings. Both of those could be said to be successes for the coalition. And in a way, the formation of the coalition itself was a success. You talk about our leaders as being tyrants, when in fact both HEROES and REPO were fed up with TheAlgarvian trying to control them all the time. Thermopylae is more guilty of tyranny towards its pacts than any coalition alliance has ever been to one another.
DeletedUser54495
Guest
Yes unsurprisingly that is how you play grepolis by taking cities. Did you not know that?
Like I know that you only ever take internals so it's hard to grasp for you that you have to take enemy cities but cmon big fella this is common knowledge...
DeletedUser54850
Guest
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.
DeletedUser54775
Guest
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.
DeletedUser54495
Guest
Typical futbol you dodge 10 points that prove you wrong.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser54192
Guest
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.
I think we should congratulate FutbolTango, for being the first player on the server to openly have so little respect for his own leadership and teammates! He has criticised his own leadership through his criticism of Mayhem, and has admitted to us that he regards his teammates' cities irrelevant and unimportant if they are lost.
DeletedUser54850
Guest
Lmao your 'glorious leader' TheAlgarvian was one of the leaders of Mayhem, I remember talking to him and have messages to prove it.
DeletedUser54775
Guest
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.
DeletedUser54192
Guest
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. 
DeletedUser54775
Guest
....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.
In my experience, this is the best alliance that I have been. I am having a great time. I know this pains you and hence your obsession with replying and twisting words...
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser54192
Guest
(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.
DeletedUser54067
Guest
Thanks for jogging my memory on ITM, but even with ITM we had closer to 200 players than 300, if I remember correctly ITM was absorbed very quickly into one alliance after the Thermo split. When I say 52 is "irrelevant", I put quotes around it to say, no ocean is irrelevant in the game but 52 is irrelevant in terms of REPO warring with Thermo just like 45/55 wouldn't be that important in that case. The thing is our Northern oceans 34/54/33/44 and the few guys in 43/53 are just as strong as the guys down south. The difference is REPO players just aren't as good as HEROES and CARPE DIEM players especially the ones from 56. Another thing is when their are good REPO players they are based in oceans that even if we conquered 43/53 we would never go after just because it is to far from our core of 55/45/54/44, this also adds to their "irrelevancy". While the density in the core is so high that controlling a core ocean is an important cause no matter how far away from the center you are (although you don't need one to win it definitely helps).
DeletedUser54775
Guest
Well, with every post it is becoming more clear that you have previous issues with the leadership of Themopylae. Perhaps you are even a bit upset that you were not invited to be part of it.
This might be also the reason why criticize Thermo leaders for setting standards when it came to selection of players. From seeing your stats, you would not have made the cut.
In any case, The Algarvian so far has been an excellent leader. I really do not have anything bad to say about these guys. This is the alliance that I have had more fun with and the one than in my opinion has been the best. We might defer, but I am having a great time, and it is thanks to these guys.
DeletedUser54192
Guest
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.
DeletedUser54775
Guest
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.
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.
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.
Yes, my lower BP ranking is deliberately lower than my point ranking. I do look for efficiency ratios in battles, resource production and point and city acquisition. The bigger and the more efficient that I am the more that I can help the alliance in the long run. I know that this is hard for you to understand. Perhaps one day you will come to realize the importance of this approach. Wars are not military conflicts, but resource/political/diplomatic conflicts.
I know that most of you do not see it this way, but once you see this way you understand wars in the real world and here too.
3) I would invite Tigger and Co. He/she has a good size. I think that she would have more fun with us.
DeletedUser54192
Guest
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.
Also, I can say for a fact that I have server under better leadership than Thermopylae's. And size is basically irrelevant when it comes to poor leadership. There may be some leaders better at large alliances and some better at small elite alliances, but the core skills are essentially the same, so your point is effectively invalid. Also, the "once you get to this [my] level" is a childish argument used only by those who think themselves inherently superior to those around them. Let me tell you, those sort of players are not the ones who gain respect from people on these forums.
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.
Do you understand how sniping works? It doesn't matter how many attacks the enemy sends, if you can land a bunch of biremes between the last clearing attack and the CS, you save the city so long as you beat the CS escort. Ask HEROES - I am smaller than quite a lot of their players, and at one point was OP'd by their alliance. They had a lot more troops and ships than I did, yet I still managed to kill a decent number of CSs in that time.
And here come the excuses. If you were such a great fighter, you'd have a BP ranking much closer to your points 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.
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.
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.
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.
DeletedUser54775
Guest
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.
2) I do enjoy very much the WW part of the game. If you do not like it, then you do not like or truly understand Grepolis. This is when you see if your planning and strategy during the previous months was a good one.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I am sorry to tell you but you will never win a crown with your approach.
2) I do enjoy very much the WW part of the game. If you do not like it, then you do not like or truly understand Grepolis. This is when you see if your planning and strategy during the previous months was a good one.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I am sorry to tell you but you will never win a crown with your approach.
DeletedUser54192
Guest
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
DeletedUser54775
Guest
Kal,
The problem that you are having is that you are thinking in terms of one universal truth, and knowledge as something independent from the subject. Therefore, for you this becomes a battle to improve the truth.
1) It is not ad hominem attack. It is simple the reality of having such a vast difference in size. I am rank 2/3 in the world, and you are ranked 323. This by itself makes us play and proceed the game differently. You have little idea of how to get to this point and to play with the demands of having 80+ cities.
2) Yes, but the "Game" now has WW, and profoundly changes it. In my view, this is a good change as makes this war game more realistic. No war in history is purely militaristic affair. This is what so many people fail to understand in this forum. Wars are about managing resources, long term strategies, geopolitical relations, and diplomacy. Military operations are means to an ends and not the other way around. You are playing the game upside down. This is what you do not realize or understand. If you want to play this game well, then you need to start thinking about WW from day one.
3) This is your opinion and experience. However, Sniping is ineffective against good and experienced players and can be highly inefficient in terms of time management. Try to come to the core, and you will learn how your sniping will become useless.
4) Once again. This is what you do not understand and you will do well for yourself by reading the Art of War by Tzung
"To fight and conquer in all our battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."
"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win."
If you want to win in Grepolis, you should try to obtain positions that later on will give you an advantage on the WW, and you should obtain them with the least amount of resources possible. This is it. Not fighting for the sake of fighting.
5) This is your misguided misconception.
6) Yes, it is called cost/benefit analysis and not blind and stupid indoctrination or brain washing. If you leaders are not doing their job properly and your teammates are not pulling their weight, you should not stick around due to "blind loyalty".
7) I do not agree with you. This game is about winning the crown. If you want to choose "respect from the others" and confuse "loyalty" with stupidly and foolishly sticking around people who are not doing things right, then by all means go ahead because I will always end up beating you.
The problem that you are having is that you are thinking in terms of one universal truth, and knowledge as something independent from the subject. Therefore, for you this becomes a battle to improve the truth.
1) It is not ad hominem attack. It is simple the reality of having such a vast difference in size. I am rank 2/3 in the world, and you are ranked 323. This by itself makes us play and proceed the game differently. You have little idea of how to get to this point and to play with the demands of having 80+ cities.
2) Yes, but the "Game" now has WW, and profoundly changes it. In my view, this is a good change as makes this war game more realistic. No war in history is purely militaristic affair. This is what so many people fail to understand in this forum. Wars are about managing resources, long term strategies, geopolitical relations, and diplomacy. Military operations are means to an ends and not the other way around. You are playing the game upside down. This is what you do not realize or understand. If you want to play this game well, then you need to start thinking about WW from day one.
3) This is your opinion and experience. However, Sniping is ineffective against good and experienced players and can be highly inefficient in terms of time management. Try to come to the core, and you will learn how your sniping will become useless.
4) Once again. This is what you do not understand and you will do well for yourself by reading the Art of War by Tzung
"To fight and conquer in all our battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."
"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win."
If you want to win in Grepolis, you should try to obtain positions that later on will give you an advantage on the WW, and you should obtain them with the least amount of resources possible. This is it. Not fighting for the sake of fighting.
5) This is your misguided misconception.
6) Yes, it is called cost/benefit analysis and not blind and stupid indoctrination or brain washing. If you leaders are not doing their job properly and your teammates are not pulling their weight, you should not stick around due to "blind loyalty".
7) I do not agree with you. This game is about winning the crown. If you want to choose "respect from the others" and confuse "loyalty" with stupidly and foolishly sticking around people who are not doing things right, then by all means go ahead because I will always end up beating you.