Northern War Score Board

DeletedUser

Guest
This Score board shows the wars of OoO+ADM+TN against AoA, all gains and losses only refer to ones taken or lost to an enemy alliance.
7:20 PM (gmt - 5) 4/04/11, will try and update daily.
Sources used:
-http://www.grepostats.com/world/en8/alliance/5482/colonizations?type=lose&enemy_alliance=3166&min_points=&max_points=&page=0
-http://www.grepostats.com/world/en8/alliance/3166/colonizations?type=lose&enemy_alliance=5482&min_points=&max_points=
-http://www.grepostats.com/world/en8/alliance/3166/colonizations?type=lose&enemy_alliance=6311&min_points=&max_points=
-http://www.grepostats.com/world/en8/alliance/3166/colonizations?type=lose&enemy_alliance=1&min_points=&max_points=
-http://www.grepostats.com/world/en8/alliance/1/colonizations?type=lose&enemy_alliance=3166&min_points=&max_points=
-http://www.grepostats.com/world/en8/alliance/6311/colonizations?type=lose&enemy_alliance=3166&min_points=&max_points=
http://www.grepostats.com/world/en8/alliance/3166/colonizations?type=lose&enemy_alliance=10547&min_points=&max_points=
http://www.grepostats.com/world/en8/alliance/10547/colonizations?type=lose&enemy_alliance=3166&min_points=&max_points=

WHOLE WAR
Owners of the Oceans
losses - 74
gains - 260

Alianza de la Muerte
losses - 48
gains - 122

The Nameless
losses - 14
gains - 124

Renters of the Oceans
losses - 7
gains - 17

Army of Anubis
losses (to OoO) - 260
losses (to ADM) - 122
losses (to TN) - 124
losses (to RoO) - 17
losses (total) - 523
gains (from OoO) - 74
gains (from ADM) - 48
gains (from TN) - 14
gains (from RoO) - 7
gains (total) - 143

OVERALL STATISTICS for the whole war
Owners of the Oceans - UP 186
Alianza de la Muerte - UP 74
The Nameless - UP 110
Renters of the Oceans - Up 10
Army of Anubis - DOWN 380

PAST 7 DAYS
Owners of the Oceans
losses - 0
gains - 16

Alianza de la Muerte
losses - 1
gains - 10

The Nameless
losses - 5
gains - 11

Renters of the Oceans
losses - 4
gains - 4

Army of Anubis
losses (to OoO) - 16
losses (to ADM) - 10
losses (to TN) - 11
losses (to RoO) -4
losses (total) - 42
gains (from OoO) - 0
gains (from ADM) - 1
gains (from TN) - 5
gains (from RoO) - 4
gains (total) - 10

OVERALL STATISTICS for the past week
Owners of the Oceans - UP 16
Alianza de la Muerte - UP 10
The Nameless - UP 6
Renters of the Oceans - Up/Down 0
Army of Anubis - DOWN 32

Some of you may read this different then me, but i think that this clearly shows that OoO,ADM,TN are winning this war against AoA and even though AoA may be putting up a fight, there time is limited.

Please give your inputs on this
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
It is very clear, and it is such a good description :) thank you for your eforts.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
nice one strico.
say farouk, do you need to reply on every post is amde, every day?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
What the War looks like

A lord must rule over his people (D)

The serfs must obey their lord (pop)

This is much like The Northern War. OoO and allies are the lord
And AoA is the little mob person who flees at the first sign of trouble.

All together you may think this is just propaganda and is men't to rase morale in the war Right? Wrong. The coward who fights in inactivity hours and sends spam to maintain his MRA I have a message for him...:pro: and play right!
 

DeletedUser

Guest
OoO broke a net gain of 50 cities today when Sweetpeas lost a city to Raulm.

Also nice work to ADM (up 44) and Nameless (up 34), if we keep up this pace AoA will be gone in to time
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I bet they wish they could HACK Grepostats, so they could continue to give false information...
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I alone have taken 6 cities from AdM in last 24 hours.... Don't believe me???

Check the 'UNHACKED' grepostats.... Don't worry soon OotO would be brought to justice too...
 

DeletedUser

Guest
You took 2 from this player.

graph



You took 3 from this player.

graph



I may be completely wrong here but usually if a player has got a flat gradient on their growth and then suddenly loses multiple cities with their own alliance proclaiming them to be inactive then it usually means they are....Oh what's the word? Oh yeah, INACTIVE.

You can hardly proclaim yourself to be a one man wrecking crew when all you take are inactives. Can you?

Oh, here's my source if you want it Grepostats.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
lol.... you really think AdM would let their 300k+ points inactive players cities go just like that???

I took on 5 different players to take those cities... and yea it is not possible to take 6 cities from active players in 24 hours.... but if you can or anyone from your alliance can , then take 6 cities or may be even 4 cities from AoA at once.... i took cities from the place where AdM have main players and in middle of the battlefield...
 

DeletedUser

Guest
kanishka1 said:
and yea it is not possible to take 6 cities from active players in 24 hours.... but if you can or anyone from your alliance can , then take 6 cities or may be even 4 cities from AoA at once
Click to expand...
As your first post boasted six conquers in a day, and your second declared the same feat impossible had it been done with active players, for the purposes of this post, conquers are conquers, regardless of a player's activity or not:

As such, checking Grepostats, this isn't the first time AoA has taken multiple cities in one day from OOtO or AdM. If we're talking "combo conquers" for at least four in a day, AoA rack up 31 cities in 6 separate days. Which is to say the least, impressive.

But then you have AdM, who by the same criteria take 35 cities in a day less. Or OOtO, who took 50 cities over 9 separate days. And some of these AdM/OOtO days overlap, and AoA have 11+ losses on those single days.

Every alliance has its weak spots and its inactives and its hundred reasons why multiple cities can get taken over short periods. It's just part of the war, and framing it to fit a side's needs is part of the propaganda that inevitably goes hand in hand with it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
lol... I wish you knew English!!

I wrote a single player taking 4 cities not whole ALLIANCE!! I single handedly took 6 cities in 24 hours GAP from AdM.... and that is what I told!!
 

DeletedUser

Guest
why is it important to be a single player taking 4 cities in a day, good alliances relize that you should work as a whole and spread the wealth.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Inactives are inactives. You say you took on 5 separate players to get those cities? I am assuming you mean AdM tried to defend their inactives otherwise you wouldn't have bothered mentioning anything. So what if you took on 5 players to get those cities? It's like fighting a blind man, he doesn't know when attacks are coming his way, merely when he gets hit.

Besides, only on the weekend I managed to revolt 6 cities, take two and help an ally take another two all against a player who is notorious for being a turtle. Not quite 6 cities for one person in 24 hours but still pleasing.

I have to give credit to Sweetpeas, she did defend very well and so if she posts in this forum, I'll immediately give her +rep :)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
kanishka1 said:
lol... I wish you knew English!!

I wrote a single player taking 4 cities not whole ALLIANCE!! I single handedly took 6 cities in 24 hours GAP from AdM.... and that is what I told!!
Click to expand...
The fact that you are working as an individual, and not as part of a team, then, is perhaps telling as to why you as an alliance are losing this war.

But if you wish to be pedantic, you didn't say a single player, you said "anyone from the alliance"; ambiguous at best as to its single/plural intention. ;)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Ok guys ,

I don't wanna fight a verbal war with anyone... Apart from being enemies inside game , it's good to be friends here... I just stated the fact that I took 6 cities and that indicated that AoA could bounce back even after loosing many cities... It's not that I am boasting about my city taking or anything, it's just that WAR would continue for far more time than we people expect...

Sorry if I offended anyone , I just wanted to state the fact...

Thanks!
 

DeletedUser

Guest
If an inactive is being defended (which he was) then it doesn't matter if they are inactive.

If an inactive in my alliance was being conquered and all of liquidators sent support to it and you still took the city it would be bloody impressive (and impossible :p). If it was just 6 inactive cities that were completely undefended that is something else...
 

DeletedUser

Guest
not nessasarily, to do a good defensive manuver it is vary helpful to know when the attacks are landing, the only way to know an attack is going in on a city otherwise is by trip wires which are only triggared when the attack lands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top