Newspaper Occassional papers - a potatoes outlook - issue 2 - (this is NOT a troll. Repeat. NOT a troll)

1saaa

Phrourach
A potatoes outlook
Contents:
Introduction
Current world analysis
Interview with Ruthie
Bloods and fiasco: A closer look
Odds for the win
Memes
Conclusion

Introduction
No this is not a troll. Yes this is an actual paper. Happy? Becuase, if you're not then I'm gonna kill you. I've got a lot to break down in this paper. I have done an interview with Ruthie but it is massively outdated. Bear that in mind when reading questions and answers. I didn't do any other interviews. Nope. Not one. Definitely not two (please don't kill me).

Current world analysis
A lot has happened in this server so I thought why not run down a few key events and give a lay of the land. So, a lot of alliances such as TPC, EA and VicRata. These teams have moved into the fiasco camp. Studying the world map this world has three key players. Those being fiasco bloods and vics. Vics are spread out across 54 and 44 with Pandemonium (there whores) into 53. They have a very thick frontline. The fiasco group are in 55 with some incursions into 65 and 56. Over all fiasco's core is looking very strong. Do not underestimate this team. Last but not(?) least there's bloods. They also have a very thick core and but as things look there's gets much more loosely packed the further into 45 you go. This could possibly be an issue for bloods in the future. I'm also going to give a quick mention to virtus. They are on there own corner of 44 right now (don't like the look of the neighbours though). Over all these teams have consolodated and are prepping for long wars. Right now Currently the warscore between fiasco and vics is 86-107. Fiasco are within striking distance of vics. Another thing to note is that fiasco's sister and such have all faced previous attacks from vics. This may make the warscore seem better for vics than it actually is. The other warscore of note is between fiasco and bloods. This warscore is 73-67 to fiasco. A very close war to be sure. An interesting observation to make is that many of the cities that have been taken have been from each others respective cores. In other words: easy takes. This leads to a situation where the takes in the coming weeks will be more and more impressive and will truly show the skill of each teams coordination and planning. Thats all for the war update anyway. Moving swiftly on.

Interview with Ruthie
This interview was conducted on the 21st of February 2020. In other words. VERY OLD. So, take some of the stuff said with grain of salt.
Question 1:

As of now this server is split into three key factions (fiasco, bloods and vics). What do you think are the greatest strengths and weaknesses of each faction?


VICTRIX and co are a strong adversary and regardless of what happens in any world you cant take them for granted, they are a good group of players who have many strengths I cant think of a weakness other then if they get to complacent

Fiasco United and co strong group of players , aggressive , have a goal and go for it
only weakness if they have any is players getting bored


Written In Blood and co

Bloods strengths are they have a close bond, many played together for 6 worlds
both aggressive and defensive and a will never give up
weakness probably trust the wrong people alot of the time

*************************************

Question 2: Bloods is set up in a prime position to ignore the pending fiasco vics war and do there own thing. Whilst this is a great thing for bloods as far as prepping for wonders some may consider it a risk for one team to absorb another. To what extent do you think is this a risk?

Not quite sure what the questions is asking but we don't see us as being in a good position because you have to have war to grow. Where we sit, there is only so much growth you can have without being in a battle. At the end of the day, it's city count and how many resources you can get to your wonders that will win the crown. We don't see our position as advantageous as you, the risk is not having enough cities to compete when the time comes for building WW's.


Question 3: From what I've seen you say you always seem to have strong convictions about honour and loyalty. If bloods were to betray those convictions what would you do?


There is a difference between betraying someone and reaching a mutual agreement when the situation warrants a change
Bloods wont betray these convictions well I am founder its what we have and always strive for, we cant argue the fact of these sentiments we hold strong to others if we dont convey and portray them ourselves

Bloods and fiasco: a closer look
Oh lovely. Lovely lovely. This the controversial part of the paper. This is the part where I get swarmed by literally everyone. Fun. Fun fun fun. Before I start this section off a quick note to say. Yes you could consider my views biased on this matter. Because, why wouldn't they be? I'd also like to make a point about saying that I'm not involved with fiascos leadership so I only know what I've seen. Now with that being said let me try and make sense of this.

Fiasco and bloods had a NAP agreed. Part of this agreed NAP was a 14 day cancellation period. Bloods informed fiasco of there intention to break the NAP on the 1st of March. We were then told that the NAP would cease to exist on the 14th of March (as accordance with the 14 day cancellation period). Then on the 6th bloods cancelled the NAP early. This was because there council voted for it (from what I have heard).

Now in my eyes if your going to make your alliance all about loyalty, Integrity and honour not having the decency to wait for the cancellation period is very tacky. To say the least. I don't really think anyone in bloods should waste time trying to deny that. Furthermore, after 117 I think it would be a safe bet to say that Bloods would be rightfully bringing the sky down if fiasco did the same to them.

As previously stated the warscore sits at 73-67 in fiasco's favour. Not bad by any margin. But, when you consider the way bloods started the war I feel like more could have been done on there end. As these two teams continue to clash I am giving fiasco the favour in a 1 v 1 war. No offence bloods. But, if this is how you start a war with an early NAP cancel then how are you going to do ending the war? If vics were to help bloods fiasco would be in a much more challenging position. Whilst, I have no doubt that Vics will take advantage of this and try and take out fiasco how much they work with bloods in my opinion will be fiasco's determining factor.

Odds for the win
Betting odds is a new section I'm going to do in these papers. Essentially I'm going to put the odds of each team winning the crown at that point in the server. After an intense five minutes of thinking here are the odds that I have come up with (for winning with four wonders):

Vics: 50%
Fiasco: 40%
Bloods: 10%

Let me justify my views. First of all vics in front may seem controversial. Here is my thought track: fiasco is a very strong team. They have well organised leadership and skilled players. But, where I think they will fall is the fact that they are just not as experienced as vics are when it comes down to wonders. I think this will bite them in the back in the long run. Furthermore, Fiasco could very well be in an intense two front war in soon with vics and bloods. Two front wars are a nightmare and one can spell the end for even the best team. That includes fiasco.

Now bloods at 10%. TBH I think that even though bloods will last until WW's I don't see them actually getting a crown. This is because I think compared to vics they come up short. Compared to fiasco they come up short. As teams I don't think bloods can bring the power that fiasco and vics can. Combined with bloods getting beat by vics in 108 and BBM in 117 there record isn't the greatest.

Those are my opinions on teams chances for a crown.

Memes

Now onto my favourite section of the paper. I'm sure you people are going to get a real chuckle out of this.

1584045990427.png
1584046020691.png
1584046070980.png
1584046113832.png
1584046137165.png
1584046189236.png
1584046325855.png
1584046452064.png

Hopefully those were satisfactory.

Conclusion
Before I sign off for the night I'd like to say thank you for reading my paper. I'm sorry I took forever in writing it. I really am. But, life has been hard on me as of late. Before I leave I'd just like to put a quote here (in a really cliche way) which I think best reflects the events on the externals forums regarding fiasco and bloods.

"Truth is the first casualty of war" - Aeschylus

Interpret that how you wish.
 

foogaloowhoOP

Phrourach
wth, ruthie is actually spot on with our weakness and fails to capitalize on it.
Y'all really need to listen to Martinus more, srsly
 
Last edited:

MartinusV

Strategos
bias more than a little lol.

the score v fiasco from the point of break has bloods way on top, whilst i would agree this benefits us with the initial attacks - the decision and subsequent attacks where within 1 hour so there was no plan behind this. fiascos players had the same notice as ours, none lol.

just a lot of he said she said and from my view i dont think trust was ever there but hey. anyway fiasco are probably in the driving seat now that the 'isolated' cities/players are slowly taken care of. most recent battle i think around 8-6 in their fav. enjoyable war so far. biggest concern i see for fiasco is number of players in vm, they fear the smell of blood perhaps ;) unless they sort that out they wont compete with us for wonders let alone vic (not that theyre going for wonders right ;) )
 

Sunfyre

Phrourach
the decision and subsequent attacks where within 1 hour so there was no plan behind this. fiascos players had the same notice as ours, none lol.
Sure, lol
Golden Horn sending 10 LS probes everywhere a few hours before the NAP ended and claiming it was because we were marked 'red' was all just a happy accident, I'm certain

Dunno what's worse, mate. That you're lying or that there's stuff that your leadership's hiding from you and you don't know what happens in your own alliance, lol.
 

MartinusV

Strategos
Sure, lol
Golden Horn sending 10 LS probes everywhere a few hours before the NAP ended and claiming it was because we were marked 'red' was all just a happy accident, I'm certain

Dunno what's worse, mate. That you're lying or that there's stuff that your leadership's hiding from you and you don't know what happens in your own alliance, lol.
i cant argue with you there mate. perhaps he was told to attack to instigate everything. more plausible than a glitch i agree lol (i did laugh at that one). however it still means 99% of bloods had the same notification as you guys.
 

1saaa

Phrourach
bias more than a little lol.

the score v fiasco from the point of break has bloods way on top, whilst i would agree this benefits us with the initial attacks - the decision and subsequent attacks where within 1 hour so there was no plan behind this. fiascos players had the same notice as ours, none lol.

just a lot of he said she said and from my view i dont think trust was ever there but hey. anyway fiasco are probably in the driving seat now that the 'isolated' cities/players are slowly taken care of. most recent battle i think around 8-6 in their fav. enjoyable war so far. biggest concern i see for fiasco is number of players in vm, they fear the smell of blood perhaps ;) unless they sort that out they wont compete with us for wonders let alone vic (not that theyre going for wonders right ;) )
Interesting. I hope you'll forgive me but I don't have pre nap break warscores so I can't really compare them.

As for the whole one hour notice thing. Well I hope you'll forgive me for finding that a bit hard to believe ;) But, that does make my point about bloods failing to take a commanding lead less valid.

I still to believe that fiasco are the better team though which is why in a straight 1 v 1 I think we will beat bloods ;)

And you are right. This is gonna be a fun war :D
 

MartinusV

Strategos
Interesting. I hope you'll forgive me but I don't have pre nap break warscores so I can't really compare them.

As for the whole one hour notice thing. Well I hope you'll forgive me for finding that a bit hard to believe ;) But, that does make my point about bloods failing to take a commanding lead less valid.

I still to believe that fiasco are the better team though which is why in a straight 1 v 1 I think we will beat bloods ;)

And you are right. This is gonna be a fun war :D
take away the inactives you went for were probably something like 7-3 up on this battle but thats part of the game.

its like finding it hard to believe that the 1 person we op and wipe out amazingly has a rl emergency yet manages to be

defending all day right? even a 14hr cs landed which surely couldve been stopped.

1v1 there is no winner, alliances are too big now
 

foogaloowhoOP

Phrourach
take away the inactives you went for were probably something like 7-3 up on this battle but thats part of the game.

its like finding it hard to believe that the 1 person we op and wipe out amazingly has a rl emergency yet manages to be

defending all day right? even a 14hr cs landed which surely couldve been stopped.

1v1 there is no winner, alliances are too big now
Can't wait for us to merge and go back to slappin vix again.
 
Last edited:

1saaa

Phrourach
take away the inactives you went for were probably something like 7-3 up on this battle but thats part of the game.

its like finding it hard to believe that the 1 person we op and wipe out amazingly has a rl emergency yet manages to be

defending all day right? even a 14hr cs landed which surely couldve been stopped.

1v1 there is no winner, alliances are too big now
Sometimes RL crops up at the worst possible time. More often I think that people see something happening in there RL and use it as an excuse. Not lying per-say but more exaggerating.