DeletedUser
Guest
I am sad to hear that kockie is leaving. First Atalantia, then gbajramo and now kockie. Great athenian leaders have left 
Still, the fight must go on
Still, the fight must go on
So, How's the weather EVO'S? Getting a little "Turbulant" I see...
DeletedUser
Guest
Operation "Shock and Awe" Continues...
And these are Stats after EVO's Graciously "Removed" Their largest players that were our targets from their alliance. So the stats are rather, "Conservative" Will you do the same with the next 3 big players were targeting? (And Dont be silly No I wont mention Whom, where or what our next targets are.)
And these are Stats after EVO's Graciously "Removed" Their largest players that were our targets from their alliance. So the stats are rather, "Conservative" Will you do the same with the next 3 big players were targeting? (And Dont be silly No I wont mention Whom, where or what our next targets are.)
DeletedUser
Guest
Shock and awe? That was no shock and awe.
That all was lucky, opportune, random, unintentional and unplanned... what are you talking about?
And what is this about 3 targets? At last count, there were 113 targets.
That all was lucky, opportune, random, unintentional and unplanned... what are you talking about?
And what is this about 3 targets? At last count, there were 113 targets.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
You know what, losing 9 in 5 days isnt bad considering. We get more citys than we lose in the long run
DeletedUser
Guest
oooh yes 37 cities lost..
but 92 gained..
tell me why I should be worried?
but 92 gained..
tell me why I should be worried?
DeletedUser
Guest
In my opinion it is not valid in this equation to combine Evo 1 and Evo 2. I for one don't know, where they focus their firepower. It looks to me that the focus is on Evolution 1.
So the true and more appropriate result is: 30 lost, 53 gained.
So the true and more appropriate result is: 30 lost, 53 gained.
DeletedUser
Guest
Since both Evolutions work as one, under the same leadership. It makes no different who is in which alliance. So therefore, yes we are grouped as one, as we play as one.
DeletedUser
Guest
No, that is not valid in my book and a poor "excuse". They attacked one of your branches and you took quite some losses there. Either your second branch is better prepared than your first branch or you have some heavy attacks incomming on Evo 1, or both. Especially since your first branch took more than 4 times damage than your second branch, which makes me even more believe in my opinion.
In analogy, i make differences between DD 1 and DD2 or DD TW, especially in question of strategic and tactic evaluations and progressions and long term goals. A part of that is the win/loss equation, troops constellation, military troop setup etc.
Sorry, but i am a girl who likes to play with numbers. And you can'T just open a sack put everything in there, shake it well and proclaim: "It is all one, it is all well mixed, we are all one thing". You are on paper, but not in terms of math.
/Nat
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
we have no branches... we are one alliance, the only reason we aren't one is the alliance cap.
If you make difference between DD1, 2 and DD TW.. that is because you act as seperate branches.
We do not act as branches or play as branches. our squads are mixed with players from both alliances.
So I will combine the scores of both because that is how we play.
If you make difference between DD1, 2 and DD TW.. that is because you act as seperate branches.
We do not act as branches or play as branches. our squads are mixed with players from both alliances.
So I will combine the scores of both because that is how we play.
DeletedUser
Guest
I beg to differ:
You first branch took a quite massive hit of 0,698 city ratio value, while your second branch came out way better with a ratio of 0,179 target loss. That is quite a difference and shows a hefty disparity there.
You first branch took a quite massive hit of 0,698 city ratio value, while your second branch came out way better with a ratio of 0,179 target loss. That is quite a difference and shows a hefty disparity there.
DeletedUser
Guest
Firstly I think if you'll find that the '2nd' took the hits
Secondly since we don't have branches and are one alliance, just split due to the alliance cap.. I will count our stats in the way that we work, by combining the both
Secondly since we don't have branches and are one alliance, just split due to the alliance cap.. I will count our stats in the way that we work, by combining the both
DeletedUser
Guest
The over analysis of wars today is hilarious. People are actually attributing loses to how many periods are after the alliance name on the banner of the players fighting? Evolution are 1 alliance and that cant even be debated.
Why did one lose more than the other? Cause the odds of them both losing the same ammount is ridiculously small... youre attacking different players, not different alliances. If some players did worse off than others losing cities, it isnt because of where theyre placed, its because they were simply attack focused harder and less prepared/less active then their enemy or their alliance mates.
Either way this seems to be the first real test for evolution, possibly even the first real test for Legion. Should be interesting to see how they respond to relatively significant loses compared to past wars.
Why did one lose more than the other? Cause the odds of them both losing the same ammount is ridiculously small... youre attacking different players, not different alliances. If some players did worse off than others losing cities, it isnt because of where theyre placed, its because they were simply attack focused harder and less prepared/less active then their enemy or their alliance mates.
Either way this seems to be the first real test for evolution, possibly even the first real test for Legion. Should be interesting to see how they respond to relatively significant loses compared to past wars.
DeletedUser
Guest
I debate it and i elaborated already in length my reasons to differ between them both in this current conflict.
You are absolutly wrong. It seems that the enemies of Evolution precicely went for Evolution 1 and not Evolution 2. Which proves my point.
DeletedUser
Guest
I'm really not sure why this is an arguement. If Evolution count ourselves as one then we count ourselves as one. If someone takes a city, they take it from all of us.. if we take a city we take it for all of us. We are a team.
DeletedUser
Guest
Natanae...check your prescription or lay off the sauce. Even if we were working as two separate alliances, which we are not, you're just wrong.
Here's how it breaks down by your analysis:
- dot1 lost 7 cities
- dot2 lost 30 cities
So...from your completely irrelevant outsider looking in perspective it might appear that dot2 has been targeted. Not dot1 as you have stated.
Though...as lozza has stated we are one alliance separated only by an alliance cap limit set for this world. So...for a more relevant insider perspective of the situation the math looks more like this.
- dot1 lost 7 cities
- dot2 lost 30 cities
(7+30=37 for the math challenged)
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
Youre drawing a line between two irrelevant facts... in the hope that you can scew the stats to make it look like youre winning more than you actually are.
How does Evo 1 losing more cities than Evo 2 make them not a single alliance? Its like focusing 5 players in a 60 player alliance and saying those 5 player's stats should be considered seperatly from the rest.
The simple history of how evo was formed should make it painfully obvious they are 1 alliance.
DeletedUser
Guest
And...oddly enough Natanae is a representative of the Dirty Dozen, who last I checked, are allied with us and hitting DL. So...technically on the same side.
In any event, no matter how you slice it we've lost some cities and we've taken some cities. You lot can divide it up and throw any crazy statistics at it that you want it's still 37 cities lost and far more than that gained.
DeletedUser
Guest
Man, *you* need to get your facts straight: First off we are allied with evolution, so what do you try to accomplish here??!?!?
I merely stated my point of view regarding this affair here: If one branch loses out that much more than the other branch while being attacked in a conflict, then something is wrong there.
Might be that the attackers focus on one branch only?!
Mathwise, it is still not the same and i stand to my opinion.
/signs out of this discussion
DeletedUser
Guest
Man, *you* need to get your facts straight: First off we are allied with evolution, so what do you try to accomplish here??!?!?
I merely stated my point of view regarding this affair here: If one branch loses out that much more than the other branch while being attacked in a conflict, then something is wrong there.
Might be that the attackers focus on one branch only?!
Mathwise, it is still not the same and i stand to my opinion.
/signs out of this discussion
This is what I dont get. Do you expect them to lose equal amounts? It just dosent make sense.
And yes I was wrong. If you check im not even a member of evo either. Just by the way you speak you make it seem like youre trying to prove a point that isnt there to make this war seem like something it isnt. This is most often used by those fighting the war instead of idel 3rd parties so I ***-u-med
DeletedUser
Guest
Um, actually we are just going for both Evo's. Maybe one just lost more than the other.
Evo are one alliance. I was there at its creation. It would just be one alliance but the cap got in the way, thats all there is to it.
Evo are one alliance. I was there at its creation. It would just be one alliance but the cap got in the way, thats all there is to it.