The Enlightened War

DeletedUser

Guest
Well never really posted here so keep with me


so The Enlightened decided they were bored or something and decided to go to war with Renegades not sure exactly how it all started but know when it came to the Renegades they started it.

So I would like to say this is to keep track of what is happening in the war and if anyone could give insights to how it unfolded that would be a good read.

cos it seems like its TE against the world or is that what it is when they are against me lol :)




You Keep What you Kill
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Well come one. Since it's started who's advanced more? Renegades into TE territory or Te into Renegades territory
 

DeletedUser9925

Guest
w00t w00t!
Our own topic!

TE is more into Renegades territory.
40 TE cities in O45
17 Renegades cities in O44

I'd say it's pretty much a stalemate yet though.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I believe The renegades always assumed they had a war but it was more like a cold war since both sides had other plans...

TE to branch out and expand testing their bounderies each war they eventually won...

As the renegades keep to the middle to hold their ground helping Aegis with Corcoren sorry for the misspelling,,, and then to Reborn... now that both are dead or falling they are helping allies... Who else are they going to attack they are allies with everyone else.. lol but guess who?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Renagades vs. Enlightened.

Enlightened has that player that went into enemy territory and keep his/her city
1 for Light

Renagades do have the biggest play :eek:
1 for Renagades

Tie :O
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Well As far as I see it TE have only managed to take inactive cities ren's have taken active cities so is that 2 to rens



You keep what you kill
 

DeletedUser

Guest
lol doubtful lol coming from someone that lost there city to me how many active have TE lost?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
95% of the cities that TE took from Rens where from inactive players.

It's not just us saying so, anyone can confirm it with grepostats. Also, don't forget to check how long ago they took the last city. No more inactives, no more conquests.

Maybe this is why you asked for a cease fire some time ago..
 

DeletedUser

Guest
lmao- Ouch a cease fire dont feel special They have been asking everyone for a cease fire, except us which is a shame cause we would give them one- NOT- TE is being pushed on all sides their going to bust like a big bag of popcorn, Yummy I am going to make popcorn, ciao
 

DeletedUser

Guest
So has nobody got the scoop on how TE Ended up on everyone's plates ??????




You Keep What You Kill
 

DeletedUser

Guest
king butter said:
lmao- Ouch a cease fire dont feel special They have been asking everyone for a cease fire, except us which is a shame cause we would give them one- NOT- TE is being pushed on all sides their going to bust like a big bag of popcorn, Yummy I am going to make popcorn, ciao
Click to expand...

Lol.

As the saying goes '' Pop goes the weezel ''

~V
 

DeletedUser3635

Guest
Alex Stott said:
Well As far as I see it TE have only managed to take inactive cities ren's have taken active cities so is that 2 to rens



You keep what you kill
Click to expand...

I get tired of this argument. If a city is holding your alliance flag, and it's taken, it's a city taken that the opposing side can use against you. A city is a city, regardless if they are active or not. If you take a bunch of inactive cities around an active member, it makes it much easier to take them down... just saying ;)

It is your alliances responsibility to protect it, even when it's sitting idle.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
DivingDW said:
I get tired of this argument. If a city is holding your alliance flag, and it's taken, it's a city taken that the opposing side can use against you. A city is a city, regardless if they are active or not. If you take a bunch of inactive cities around an active member, it makes it much easier to take them down... just saying ;)

It is your alliances responsibility to protect it, even when it's sitting idle.
Click to expand...

You would have an alliance send support to an inactive city ?

Sure, We keep trip-wires in various citys, like most do.

But if its inactive, We'll usally conquer it before anyone else, But things take time, Like everything.

~V
 

DeletedUser

Guest
DivingDW said:
I get tired of this argument. If a city is holding your alliance flag, and it's taken, it's a city taken that the opposing side can use against you. A city is a city, regardless if they are active or not. If you take a bunch of inactive cities around an active member, it makes it much easier to take them down... just saying ;)

It is your alliances responsibility to protect it, even when it's sitting idle.
Click to expand...

It is true what your saying but I normally try not to count inactives as takes, well I don't really care until the people taking them are bragging about it (not saying anyone here is)

And Alex I think everyone wants a piece of TE cause they're all sim city players :p
 

DeletedUser

Guest
agreed in a lot of cases and then disagreed in others. A city taken from an inactive member is truly not the same but then again why would you let that member stay inactive is the other question. As far as war with TE and renegades i know nada, I also no nada about the war with KT and OSG. I can only speak for my alliance and that is that we had a NAP with them and they choose to break it without telling us and then tryed a sneak attack on us. They did this once they allied with bowes who they have pimped on a regular basis previously so of course bowes gladly excepted. Once this happened we targeted Bowes as well as loose cannons and both alliance disbanded shortly after and then TE started the academy to make their stats look good not to lose cities to us. i just look at what was there when we first moved in and what was there now

Before TE-482 cities..............................Before 80-DEEP- 9 cities
Now TE- 451 cities................................Now 80-DEEP- 221 cities

That number is in 5 weeks time that were in this ocean
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser3635

Guest
Talion said:
You would have an alliance send support to an inactive city ?

Sure, We keep trip-wires in various citys, like most do.

But if its inactive, We'll usally conquer it before anyone else, But things take time, Like everything.

~V
Click to expand...

There are multiple ways of keeping an inactive city out of enemy hands. Support is one, and yes if you can't take it right away, putting support in there isn't a bad idea until you are ready to take it. But if it's near an enemy, you better grab it ASAP. A simple tripwire, followed by attacks of your own, can be done as well. Again, if the city is under your alliances control, then take care of it or get rid of it is it's not wanted. Otherwise you give the enemy an advantage. Obviously if your planning to take it, then the enemy just stole it from you, and it's a +1 for them.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
king butter said:
i just look at what was there when we first moved in and what was there now

Before TE-482 cities..............................Before 80-DEEP- 9 cities
Now TE- 451 cities................................Now 80-DEEP- 221 cities

That number is in 5 weeks time that were in this ocean
Click to expand...

I don't see that as an effective way of telling how is winning, it's manipulating stats to make you look like you are winning as I'm sure a lot could be from recruiting bowes and conquests to get into position.
waits for insult :p
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser3635

Guest
king butter said:
Before TE-482 cities Before 80-DEEP- 9 cities
Now TE- 451 cities Now 80-DEEP- 221 cities

That number is in 5 weeks time that were in this ocean
Click to expand...

In the end, controlling an area is more important than the amount of cities taken (which is why you need to make sure you don't give them inactives). So you're on your way it looks like. In the OfA war we had, we took 150 cities, but considering the pure size of both of our alliances, that worked out to maybe only 2-3% of their cites. But, it put some of their bigger players into vacation mode and made them non-factors. To win, you basically have to control territory...
 

DeletedUser

Guest
DivingDW said:
In the end, controlling an area is more important than the amount of cities taken (which is why you need to make sure you don't give them inactives). So you're on your way it looks like. In the OfA war we had, we took 150 cities, but considering the pure size of both of our alliances, that worked out to maybe only 2-3% of their cites. But, it put some of their bigger players into vacation mode and made them non-factors. To win, you basically have to control territory...
Click to expand...

I likez what you just said :p +Rep, Because I haven't given any for weeks :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top