DeletedUser
Guest
No your mind lacks thought. The thought of having to actually fight or think of countering, attacking and etc. You maybe the little noob who just sits in a big alliance for protection...
No your mind lacks thought. The thought of having to actually fight or think of countering, attacking and etc. You maybe the little noob who just sits in a big alliance for protection...
DeletedUser
Guest
I can only speak of my experience. For what it's worth, here goes...
Alliances tend to "buddy up" with alliances approximately equal in stature. It makes just as much sense for the number one and two alliance to be friendly as it makes for a carpenter to be friends with an electrician or a lawyer to be friends with a doctor. The same goes for alliances ranked 17 and 18.
An alliance's ranking only says so much about its ability. So, the number one alliance is an MRA with 122 members? Cool, me and my number 25 ranked alliance of 30 hardcore members will eat that for lunch!
Grepolis is a marathon; not a sprint. I've seen alliances rise and fall, loyalties shift, friends become enemies, blah, blah, blah. Just because a few of the current top alliances are tight now does not mean they will remain that way in several months time.
I don't agree that all the top alliances always buddy up to pick on the little guys. The alliance I'm in now is ranked #2 on my server, and we are at war with just about all alliances ranked 3-12. It's just like the food chain in nature. The bigger predators are after bigger prey. It's much more rewarding for me to take a city from the founder of the third ranked alliance than from some little guy who doesn't really know what he's doing.
Alliances tend to "buddy up" with alliances approximately equal in stature. It makes just as much sense for the number one and two alliance to be friendly as it makes for a carpenter to be friends with an electrician or a lawyer to be friends with a doctor. The same goes for alliances ranked 17 and 18.
An alliance's ranking only says so much about its ability. So, the number one alliance is an MRA with 122 members? Cool, me and my number 25 ranked alliance of 30 hardcore members will eat that for lunch!
Grepolis is a marathon; not a sprint. I've seen alliances rise and fall, loyalties shift, friends become enemies, blah, blah, blah. Just because a few of the current top alliances are tight now does not mean they will remain that way in several months time.
I don't agree that all the top alliances always buddy up to pick on the little guys. The alliance I'm in now is ranked #2 on my server, and we are at war with just about all alliances ranked 3-12. It's just like the food chain in nature. The bigger predators are after bigger prey. It's much more rewarding for me to take a city from the founder of the third ranked alliance than from some little guy who doesn't really know what he's doing.
DeletedUser
Guest
When I join my next server with the intent to play seriously, I will likely be on my own or with 1-5 close trusted friends. I/We won't be joining any alliances or merging into one. My intent for future servers is for pure high intensity war waging. I don't care if you're big, medium, little, vet, inactive, active or noob. If you find yourself in my area of operation, we'll end up in battle. If I am steam rolled via numbers, then so be it. I'm getting what I want, entertainment and battle. 
Bilderberg, is this^^ the gamer mode you're seeking?
This has been a public service announcement from the Farg Grepolis Foundation.
- Donations of resources and BP are always accepted on worlds you find me.
Bilderberg, is this^^ the gamer mode you're seeking?
This has been a public service announcement from the Farg Grepolis Foundation.
- Donations of resources and BP are always accepted on worlds you find me.
DeletedUser
Guest
Honestly, if there's an island I want to be on and the highest pointer is a 1500 beginner, then I'm gonna take it. Sure, who wouldn't prefer a bigger city but you gotta do what you gotta do. Maybe it makes me sound bad but :/
At the same time though, I understand. Example: Let's see, there's a 2k city and a 10k city owned by someone who has 60 other cities....tough call, but I'll take the 2k. That's a little ridiculous.
I guess that it depends on the reasoning..
At the same time though, I understand. Example: Let's see, there's a 2k city and a 10k city owned by someone who has 60 other cities....tough call, but I'll take the 2k. That's a little ridiculous.
I guess that it depends on the reasoning..
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
[/I]
LMAO! I'm totally stealing that baby's quote!
DeletedUser39166
Guest
I think Big shgouldn't fight small but at the same time some of this is very exaggerated.
DeletedUser
Guest
So if a significantly smaller, marginally active player is slowly building up a city in my area of operations, you feel it is a good idea for me to ignore that player and then have someone larger and more problematic take the city in my operational core?
If you think that is a strategically sound idea, I wish you luck with it. You see, it isn't always that a larger player is picking on a smaller player. Sometimes, and almost always in my case, it is because that smaller player is in an area that I don't want them. Merely a situation of wrong place, wrong time. If a smaller player proves to be highly active, intelligent and motivated, depending on the situation, I might give them a chance. However in reality, I tend to move towards more established areas if given the freedom of choice and if the players there, who should be as or more developed than myself, are smaller, then shame on them.
DeletedUser
Guest
Sometimes, and almost always in my case, it is because that smaller player is in an area that I don't want them. Merely a situation of wrong place, wrong time. If a smaller player proves to be highly active, intelligent and motivated, depending on the situation, I might give them a chance.
Gotta agree with that. If there is real estate I want, I'm going after it, and a softer target is more is more appealing than a harder one.
There's a quote by the famous Confederate General Stonewall Jackson I like: ". . . never fight against heavy odds, if by any possible maneuvering you can hurl your own force on only a part, and that the weakest part, of your enemy and crush it."
Grepo is a harsh game, yo. I don't make it a point to pick on those who can't defend themselves, but if it comes down to choosing between a hard target and an easy one, why would anyone not choose the latter?
DeletedUser39847
Guest
Because the BP is needed
but i agree if that small player city is in a position that can be used to threaten you take it not to be unfair but to self preserve...DeletedUser
Guest
I definitely agree.
DeletedUser39166
Guest
So if a significantly smaller, marginally active player is slowly building up a city in my area of operations, you feel it is a good idea for me to ignore that player and then have someone larger and more problematic take the city in my operational core?
If you think that is a strategically sound idea, I wish you luck with it. You see, it isn't always that a larger player is picking on a smaller player. Sometimes, and almost always in my case, it is because that smaller player is in an area that I don't want them. Merely a situation of wrong place, wrong time. If a smaller player proves to be highly active, intelligent and motivated, depending on the situation, I might give them a chance. However in reality, I tend to move towards more established areas if given the freedom of choice and if the players there, who should be as or more developed than myself, are smaller, then shame on them.
That's not what I ment. what I ment was that it's pointless for an alliance to get into a full scale war With an alliance a quarter of there size.
DeletedUser39847
Guest
DeletedUser
Guest
Grepolis can be a harsh game, especially for marginally active and frequently new players. It certainly is not my goal to chase players away from the game by taking actions they might perceive as "bullying".
There have been times when I've contacted players early, explained that they were in my operational area and the time was coming when I'd have to remove them. I've suggested they restart and spawn away from me and explained I would even send them a few resources from time to time to help them rebuild.
I've offered to "relocate" them, meaning I take a city somewhere outside my desired area, let them take it and then they hand over the city in my area.
Of course there are times when I merely take their city(s) because of location and that I need them.
My attitude of late is to remove any player (except a friendly), regardless of size, from my operational area. Leaving weak players alone has almost always come back to bite me. So Grepolis experience has taught me to ignore sympathy and to focus on my situations.
More developed players or obviously experienced players are naturally free game. They know this game is about war and expansion. It is painfully slow and/or expensive to try and build up a proper account without taking the war to other players. It also wouldn't be much fun IMO.
Farg's 10 Grepolis Commandments (I often put this in my profile)
1. Thou shall not cry to thy attacker.
2. This is NOT SimCity and your refusal to believe so matters not.
3. Thou shall ghost thine own city, to save me the effort of conquering it and fixing your research.
4. Age , gender nor physical impairment matters. I'm here for war.
5. War is hell, get used to it.
6. Thy aggression is most welcome, I can use the BPs.
7. My troops WILL continue to farm your city.
8. Your ineptitude is not my problem.
9. I am an aggressive attacking horses behind, there is no need to mail and tell me.
10. Repeat Law 1
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
Good Commandments
DeletedUser
Guest
How do I suck whomever gave me the negative comment. I'm running solo in the middle of 6 M.R.A alliances in pargos and am buidling carefully. Been attacked twice so far.
DeletedUser
Guest
I have heard a legend in the early days of Grepolis. A player who could sweet-talk his way to founder status of the top alliances of his world. He would kick out the other founders ASAP and assume complete dominance over a top alliance. He would then proceed to deem another top alliance as an enemy and cause anarchy. No matter who won, in the end he would disband the alliance and sweet-talk his way to the next one.