DeletedUser15946
Guest
Hm, whateverr, I think that you said he is one of best (when you took a look into his conquest history and BP, right?)
Hm, whateverr, I think that you said he is one of best (when you took a look into his conquest history and BP, right?)
overrated- velael and hugocenas- these guys suck
underrated- gipobsk, razvan2508 and pescarus - these guys are bp machines
sounds good,but as far as I know it is just coincidence we are hitting the same players..
and if that was the case, which I don't think it was either, what would be so bad about it?
Two neutral or friendly alliances whose members coordinate against a common enemy.
Nothing wrong with that in my opinion.
most overrated: all the leaders (myself included)
most underrated: the people behind the leaders that make the alliance look good and support in attack and defense
I assure you we are not working with Abbs or anyone from that alliance against UOW cause of simple reason - there is no need for help against UOW,they bring nothing to the battlefield,it is just too easy so maybe time to move on..
abbs could just look at enemies that recently lost cities and go after them while they are weak.
My point was never if BA works with others but,
abbs has taken enemy cities but not enough to be one of the best.
In the same way, CR players could just look at enemies that recently lost cities and go after them while they are weak. So according to you, that is what you are doing?
from your own theory, it seems you are working with BA against UoW.
So to conclude, all the best players are in your alliance since you look at enemy cities and go after them when they are weak, like you yourself said.
We're doing great thanks,I think we'd do better if we had access to all your beer though
How are BA doing ?
Ours is taking longer to build than expected,one of our members on the Island quit the game without warning when level 7 was almost complete so we had to restart that level :Angry: