Northern War Score Board

DeletedUser

Guest
By god almighty, will they just stop delaying the inevitable?!

Took a 4th from the same AoA today...lol
Strico, you talk about them actually sending an attack? I've never herd such a thing!!! :heh:
:pro:
 

DeletedUser

Guest
strico10 if they can start 8 revolts overnight then that not a good sign
 

DeletedUser

Guest
LOL OMG im on an island with all but 3 AoA members and i haven't been attacked since i took the city 2 weeks ago LOL!!!


EDIT~ Also i have been attacking them with my city on the island and yet no one has attacked me back :(
 

DeletedUser

Guest
god greenmonkey said:
LOL OMG im on an island with all but 3 AoA members and i haven't been attacked since i took the city 2 weeks ago LOL!!!


EDIT~ Also i have been attacking them with my city on the island and yet no one has attacked me back :(
Click to expand...

*Don't pick in-active players to attack* If you want them to attack back! LOL
 

DeletedUser

Guest
im attacking VenusRebirth and he sent me a small 100 slingers LOL
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
Just updated the thread

From 3/23 to 4/04
AoA lost 86 and gained 13

I really do not see how you can say you have not lost
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Lord Creep said:
*Lost the race of our in-actives* That I will give you!
Click to expand...

Even that's not quite yours to give. In the past 25 days, the alliance to have taken the most cities from inactive AoA players is AoA itself, cannibalising around 80 cities in that time. Owners come in second with ~55 cities and Nameless come in third with ~18.

When you consider the inactive conquers of the 4/5 main alliances fighting AoA and add them together, they do overtake AoA in this 'race', but not by much; the sum of their inactive conquers only exceeding AoA's single total by ~18 cities.

So depending on how you want to view those statistics, with regards to the 'inactive AoA players' race, you either lost by a small margin, or won by a fair degree.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Khentimentu said:
Even that's not quite yours to give. In the past 25 days, the alliance to have taken the most cities from inactive AoA players is AoA itself, cannibalising around 80 cities in that time. Owners come in second with ~55 cities and Nameless come in third with ~18.

When you consider the inactive conquers of the 4/5 main alliances fighting AoA and add them together, they do overtake AoA in this 'race', but not by much; the sum of their inactive conquers only exceeding AoA's single total by ~18 cities.

So depending on how you want to view those statistics, with regards to the 'inactive AoA players' race, you either lost by a small margin, or won by a fair degree.
Click to expand...

* So you agree* glad to hear that....
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Lord Creep said:
* So you agree* glad to hear that....
Click to expand...
Oh, we agree?

We agree that it's weird you complain about your enemies taking inactives, when your own alliance on its own has only taken marginally fewer cities than the total inactive conquers of the 4/5 alliances fighting you.
We agree there's a definite likelihood that, were the number of AoA internal wartime conquests added to the scoreboard, it would show they've taken more of their own cities than OoO or TN has. Maybe even more than you've lost to other alliances in the entire war.

And at the very least, we agree it's silly to continuously complain about inactive conquers, because its entirely in the power of your leadership to kick out these players, instead of letting them be conquered.

So we agree that AoA at most, cannibalise their own more than attack anyone else, and are close to cannibalising faster than their opponents are taking...and at the very least, they're not doing a grand job of dealing with the huge level of inactivity at their frontlines.

I'm glad to hear that, too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
Khentimentu said:
Oh, we agree?

We agree that it's weird you complain about your enemies taking inactives, when your own alliance on its own has only taken marginally fewer cities than the total inactive conquers of the 4/5 alliances fighting you.
We agree there's a definite likelihood that, were the number of AoA internal wartime conquests added to the scoreboard, it would show they've taken more of their own cities than OoO or TN has. Maybe even more than you've lost to other alliances in the entire war.

And at the very least, we agree it's silly to continuously complain about inactive conquers, because its entirely in the power of your leadership to kick out these players, instead of letting them be conquered.

So we agree that AoA at most, cannibalise their own more than attack anyone else, and are close to cannibalising faster than their opponents are taking...and at the very least, they're not doing a grand job of dealing with the huge level of inactivity at their frontlines.

I'm glad to hear that, too.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the late response, but I was playing the game *instead of typing half a page to try and make a point* Enjoy the game!
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I received an attack from AoA today...:eek:

It consisted of a 8 attacks largest had 60 swords. sent CS before revolt and without escort. LOL!!!!:rolleyes:
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Well this war is going bad for AoA they keep losing strong members and other weak members also cities.

And they went from rank 6 to rank 12.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Lord Achilles404 said:
Aoa Is a good alliance now they aint as good
Click to expand...

Let me decipher what you just said,

Aoa Is a good alliance now they are not as good

Correction

AoA is a good alliance now they aren't as good as they used to be.

Even further

AoA is not a good alliance read my profile, the MRA dictionary sections.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top