Current War Scores

pawn1980

Guest
I would love to know how each current war score is going in the server. We all know we hate counting in-actives taken but they still count.

I'll start

DW vs 13th

13th taken 16 cities

DW taken 44 cities
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Graeme0161

Guest
you do like to keep score don't you? ;)

Think this weekend will have put us out of the game and may cause us to turtle up and sim it out now until the end,
 

pawn1980

Guest
What are you talking about, you guys did great this weekend. We lost 8 cities. It was a fun, great weekend. I saw great involvement from new players.

Great job to the leaders of 13th from DW.
 

Rexlex

Phrourach
Great work 13th, you have had a great week in taking some of our cities, congratulations to their new owners.

Its been great fun, and I hope that everyone on both sides is enjoying the battle.
 

pawn1980

Guest
Really come on people I'm dying to know how other wars are going.

APA vs KOM
ME vs KOM

Everyone vs WV (poor guys)
 

TurdWrangler

Guest
Really come on people I'm dying to know how other wars are going.

APA vs KOM
87 Apa
25 KoM (15 cities taken from inactive players before we booted them. 10 cities taken from active players. Not an excuse, kudos where due. but no kudos for taking inactive players' cities. :cool: )
 

DeletedUser33297

Guest
I don't see what's wrong with taking an inactive city really, it has been discussed about a million times on the grepolis forums and I'm not planning on discussing it over and over again. But a city is a city, whether the owner was inactive or not. If you don't want to lose inactive cities you might want to protect them better rather than complaining about your enemies taking them. It's simply a part of the game and I do not believe that'll ever change.
 

Mr Muay-Thai

Phrourach
I don't see what's wrong with taking an inactive city really, it has been discussed about a million times on the grepolis forums and I'm not planning on discussing it over and over again. But a city is a city, whether the owner was inactive or not. If you don't want to lose inactive cities you might want to protect them better rather than complaining about your enemies taking them. It's simply a part of the game and I do not believe that'll ever change.
Well said but it looks extremely bad when an alliances war count boasts more inactives by 2 times the active player conquest count. It shows weakness and well were weakness is shown it is usually with reason.
 

DeletedUser33297

Guest
Well said but it looks extremely bad when an alliances war count boasts more inactives by 2 times the active player conquest count. It shows weakness and well were weakness is shown it is usually with reason.
I wouldn't say it shows weakness, if it shows some kind of weakness that would be the weakness of the defending alliance not being able to defend their inactives. Especially when looking at KoM, who's gettting attacked by three alliances at once it is rather impressive they're still taking cities from their enemies.

60 KoM members vs 67+81+46= 194 and that's without DW included. How come those 194 members are not able to defend the inactives they have among their rankings is a better question to ask than asking why the enemy is taking inactive enemy cities I would say.

To be fair, taking inactives is a great way to grow bigger as an alliance while still taking enemy cities. In KoM's situation hunting inactives is most likely the best way to go, and IMO there's nothing wrong with it.

Saying 13th is doing the same thing wouldn't be entirely fair, max 7 out of the 18 cities we took were from inactives. As far as my maths go that would mean your statements are not entirely correct.
 

Mr Muay-Thai

Phrourach
I wouldn't say it shows weakness, if it shows some kind of weakness that would be the weakness of the defending alliance not being able to defend their inactives. Especially when looking at KoM, who's gettting attacked by three alliances at once it is rather impressive they're still taking cities from their enemies.

60 KoM members vs 67+81+46= 194 and that's without DW included. How come those 194 members are not able to defend the inactives they have among their rankings is a better question to ask than asking why the enemy is taking inactive enemy cities I would say.

To be fair, taking inactives is a great way to grow bigger as an alliance while still taking enemy cities. In KoM's situation hunting inactives is most likely the best way to go, and IMO there's nothing wrong with it.

Saying 13th is doing the same thing wouldn't be entirely fair, max 7 out of the 18 cities we took were from inactives. As far as my maths go that would mean your statements are not entirely correct.
Really though you can dress it up whatever way you want but when 2 alliances are at war and alliance A has 50 conquests of all active players and alliance B has 17 conquests 11 of which were inactive it shows huge weakness (I haven't checked the stats in a while but there they are)

The point is why would you defend inactives...it's a waste of resources and time. besides it's hard to defend an inactive. Personally I would rather defend an active or take an active players city.

In regards to KoM what happens when there are no more inactives? they can't take active cities so they begin to fall apart which is close and I don't think DW have had an OP on them yet.
 

DeletedUser33297

Guest
Really though you can dress it up whatever way you want but when 2 alliances are at war and alliance A has 50 conquests of all active players and alliance B has 17 conquests 11 of which were inactive it shows huge weakness (I haven't checked the stats in a while but there they are)
I don't mind saying you guys are doing a good job in this war and we are not. But saying 11 of the 18* cities were inactive is simply a lie. As far as I can see these are the inactives we have taken:

2 - JewishCoconut might have been inactive but no stats about it anymore
4 - v.underwood assuming he was inactive at the time we took the cities
1 - tgi was inactive

As far as I know 2+4+1 is still 7 and not 11.

But like I said, you guys are doing a great job at this war and are leading the scoreboard for a reason.



The point is why would you defend inactives...it's a waste of resources and time. besides it's hard to defend an inactive. Personally I would rather defend an active or take an active players city.
That's up to you, I would rather not give my enemy free cities. As long as there are inactives you'll be giving your enemy an advantage when not defending them. Wars are simply not won by having good stats, if you can win ground on your enemy by taking inactives why would one not do so?


In regards to KoM what happens when there are no more inactives? they can't take active cities so they begin to fall apart which is close and I don't think DW have had an OP on them yet.
To be fair, I have never seen a server run out of inactives and doubt that will ever happen. Neither have I ever stated they can't take cities of an active player, and I'm pretty sure they can.
 

Mr Muay-Thai

Phrourach
I don't mind saying you guys are doing a good job in this war and we are not. But saying 11 of the 18* cities were inactive is simply a lie. As far as I can see these are the inactives we have taken:

2 - JewishCoconut might have been inactive but no stats about it anymore
4 - v.underwood assuming he was inactive at the time we took the cities
1 - tgi was inactive

As far as I know 2+4+1 is still 7 and not 11.

But like I said, you guys are doing a great job at this war and are leading the scoreboard for a reason.





That's up to you, I would rather not give my enemy free cities. As long as there are inactives you'll be giving your enemy an advantage when not defending them. Wars are simply not won by having good stats, if you can win ground on your enemy by taking inactives why would one not do so?




To be fair, I have never seen a server run out of inactives and doubt that will ever happen. Neither have I ever stated they can't take cities of an active player, and I'm pretty sure they can.
byksy was inactive for 4 also so that = 11...I don't lie so don't insinuate I do...I always back up with evidence.
I also believe 2 more fell out of VM early and were inactive for a period but I won't bother putting them in as not sure.

Regardless of us defending them or not the war is won...we take the strategically important ones though.

No but Apa has no more inactives so what happens now is my point...KoM have tried to take active cities and failed miserably as far as I can tell but take huge losses in return...16-17 over a w-end is terrible.
 

DeletedUser33297

Guest
byksy was inactive for 4 also so that = 11...I don't lie so don't insinuate I do...I always back up with evidence.

That does not look inactive to me... He gained points 1 day before 13th took his cities


Neither does he look very inactive around that period...

Not sure where you got your "facts" from but they seem to be well... wrong?
 
Last edited by a moderator: