the top 5 alliance to make it the long run

alexander321

Phrourach
1. raise your weapon
if you anit heard of them you should by now they are ripping up the whole ocean they are rank 1 attacking alliance and rank 8th on the world rank. they have great leadership from what i heard.

2.rouge Bullz
they are well placed and i think they will control ocean 56 for along long time and will soon get into the top 10 rank.


3.The Nefarious *disclamer* my alliance
we are very active bunch with high avarage points and also 2nd to raise your weapon on attacking alliance we are rank 3rd in the world table. we have some great R4GE members in are alliance and are proving them selfs.

4. THE SOUTHERNERS REBORN
they have a high avarge points (we all know why) and alot of points, there rank 1 in the world rank 3rd in attacking alliances. i think they might die since they are being attack but ALOT of alliances at the moment but they are holding there own.

5. -Engima-
they have soom good alliances and if they could last being attack until TSR get killed i think they will have a real spot at stay put in this world. they are 8th on the attack alliances which is rather low,mabye they have some secrect tatic we shall find out sooner or later.

if you disagree with any of this post in a comment below your top 5 alliance that will make it the long run. :D
 

v0nClausewitz

Guest
Remember when you're talking long-term, forward momentum counts much more than point size of cities. I'd replace TSR with War Path or The Roman Republic or Ancient Greek Warfare or The Black Death Imperium. At least at those alliances, you truly know what you're getting as leadership and there's a direction they will be taking them. This 'learn as we go' thing will get very old fast.
 

Corinthian II

Guest
Whether an alliance succeeds in the long-term is impossible to determine at such an incredibly early stage of the game. It is also totally dependant on the individual members of the alliance, rather than the alliance structure or leadership.

Best thing to do is simply wait and see how the world pans out.
 

Cyllis

Guest
Whether an alliance succeeds in the long-term is impossible to determine at such an incredibly early stage of the game. It is also totally dependant on the individual members of the alliance, rather than the alliance structure or leadership.

Best thing to do is simply wait and see how the world pans out.
In response to the part I marked bold. One of my favorite war theorists, Italian Air Marshall Giulio Douhet said this back in 1928, "Victory smiles upon those who anticipate the changes in the character of war, not upon those who wait to adapt themselves after the changes occur."
 

Corinthian II

Guest
In response to the part I marked bold. One of my favorite war theorists, Italian Air Marshall Giulio Douhet said this back in 1928, "Victory smiles upon those who anticipate the changes in the character of war, not upon those who wait to adapt themselves after the changes occur."
It is the truth, but you cannot anticipate changes in wars that have not yet begun. At this point in the game, anything can change and most likely will. Those on top now may not be on top in the future, and those considered weak now make outlive those who seem so much stronger. It is foolish not to consider possibilities, but to make predictions or assumptions based upon current performance is not possible.
 

gerrard13100

Phrourach
The thread should be called : Predict the top 5 alliances to make it the long run

Atleast then you can post your predictions.
 

Hunt4you

Guest
I agree with this prediction.. except for TSR..

live in 55 at your own risk.. RAISE YOUR WEAPONS common for your polis.
 

Cyllis

Guest
It is the truth, but you cannot anticipate changes in wars that have not yet begun. At this point in the game, anything can change and most likely will. Those on top now may not be on top in the future, and those considered weak now make outlive those who seem so much stronger. It is foolish not to consider possibilities, but to make predictions or assumptions based upon current performance is not possible.
I respectfully disagree with your statement almost in its entirety. The analysis of the geopolitical situation should always be engaged. You should even include the "far out" possibilities as, well, possibilities. The vector that certain alliances will make now will set them on a trajectory in the future. Aggressiveness breeds increased aggressiveness. I will say that nothing is certain, but the bottom line is that you should always anticipate changes in wars that have yet to begin. That is how you win them.
 

roadstar

Phrourach
I respectfully disagree with your statement almost in its entirety. The analysis of the geopolitical situation should always be engaged. You should even include the "far out" possibilities as, well, possibilities. The vector that certain alliances will make now will set them on a trajectory in the future. Aggressiveness breeds increased aggressiveness. I will say that nothing is certain, but the bottom line is that you should always anticipate changes in wars that have yet to begin. That is how you win them.
attack ratios...... attack point/ member count
The roman republic 5.10%
The southern reborn 15.92
The nefarious 17.85
The beastly beasts 24.0
Raise your weapon 51.88
killing machine 63.14

And remember, 95% of all statistics can be made to say whatever you want. lol
 
Last edited:

Corinthian II

Guest
I respectfully disagree with your statement almost in its entirety. The analysis of the geopolitical situation should always be engaged. You should even include the "far out" possibilities as, well, possibilities. The vector that certain alliances will make now will set them on a trajectory in the future. Aggressiveness breeds increased aggressiveness. I will say that nothing is certain, but the bottom line is that you should always anticipate changes in wars that have yet to begin. That is how you win them.
No, you win wars by having superior strength in units, and players who are more experienced and more active.

I thought like you, when I first started. I always thought that planning things out in advance was the best way to do it, and I spent ages considering all possible angles. Over time you realise that things change so much that it is silly to think that far ahead. Grepolis is a long-term game, and any plans or assumptions made now will almost certainly be entirely irrelevant when anything important happens. The best way to play is to be ready for anything and be able to act in response to whatever happens, rather than trying to predict what will happen in order to counter it.
 

Furryicecubes

Guest
No, you win wars by having superior strength in units, and players who are more experienced and more active.

I thought like you, when I first started. I always thought that planning things out in advance was the best way to do it, and I spent ages considering all possible angles. Over time you realise that things change so much that it is silly to think that far ahead. Grepolis is a long-term game, and any plans or assumptions made now will almost certainly be entirely irrelevant when anything important happens. The best way to play is to be ready for anything and be able to act in response to whatever happens, rather than trying to predict what will happen in order to counter it.
Constantly responding to changes, rather then causing them puts you constantly on the defensive. By planning for the future, and cutting off potential threats before they truly become a threat means that you are able to act from a position of strength.

Planning allows you to respond quickly, as well as being prepared. If you are preparing for everything then you are unlikely to succeed at anything imo.

Looking at the map and at the majority of the alliances certain things can already be predicted, and by being aware of these people are able to plan for them.

Are you seriously telling me you aren't looking at potential threats and looking at ways to counter them? You're just waiting for someone to start pounding on you?
 

Corinthian II

Guest
Constantly responding to changes, rather then causing them puts you constantly on the defensive. By planning for the future, and cutting off potential threats before they truly become a threat means that you are able to act from a position of strength.

Planning allows you to respond quickly, as well as being prepared. If you are preparing for everything then you are unlikely to succeed at anything imo.

Looking at the map and at the majority of the alliances certain things can already be predicted, and by being aware of these people are able to plan for them.

Are you seriously telling me you aren't looking at potential threats and looking at ways to counter them? You're just waiting for someone to start pounding on you?


I didn't say that I never look at threats, or start fights. I do both, because I'm not a turtle and I don't have the luxury of sitting in stacked cities waiting for free BP to fall into my lap. I don't, however, judge an alliance by whether or not it has got 1,000 BP within a few hours of starting, and use that fact to determine whether or not it will succeed. Whether an alliance will succeed and whether it will be a threat to me are two different things entirely. ;-)

Edit: To elaborate.. the current judgements made so far in this thread seem along the lines of "they have # BP so they'll do well", "they're low in the rankings so not a good alliance", etc. Those aren't the sort of judgements that help anyone. Proper judgements are those based upon previous experience, activity over a long period (months, not hours), location in relation to you/your alliance, and whether or not they legitimately pose a threat to you. I perhaps could have phrased my previous posts to say as much, rather than saying not to make judgements at all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cyllis

Guest
To put it in the most simple of terms: The metadata for the OP's own analysis was based on trend given a particular point in time. It was a snapshot of what had happened thus far. Certain assumptions can be made based on that trend analysis. Ask any analyst of any particular field and they will agree that trend analysis is the most accurate type of analysis. Good chances, people will do again what they've done before. It isn't perfect, but it sure beats guessing.

The issue here is, what is the definition of "long term." OP's definition is probably different than my definition, and is probably different than your opinion. Once "long term" is accurately defined, the analysis will take varying degrees of fidelity.

So in a game where (at this point) success is measured in points (city and ABP), you don't have many metrics on which to assess the keys to success. But using those two metrics available, the OP's analysis seems viable. Time will tell.

But it is those players who are actively expanding who will most likely succeed (and growing isn't accomplished by turtles).

Just my $.02. You don't have to agree with my analysis of the OP's analysis. I'm just pointing out a few principles of analytical theory for public consumption, although I do agree with Furry on his idea of gameplay.

Great discussion.

EDIT: When I said "long term" I should have said "long run" in order to stay true to the OP's post. My bad.
 

v0nClausewitz

Guest
attack ratios...... attack point/ member count
The roman republic 5.10%
The southern reborn 15.92
The nefarious 17.85
The beastly beasts 24.0
Raise your weapon 51.88
killing machine 63.14

And remember, 95% of all statistics can be made to say whatever you want. lol
Excellent point! Even if we had a 'Sagarin ratings' version of Grepolis statistics, it wouldn't be correct 50% of the time anyway. Also like forecasting weather in 7 days advance... isn't going to be accurate at all, but it makes for good TV.
 

roesh de destroyerzz

Guest
Excellent point! Even if we had a 'Sagarin ratings' version of Grepolis statistics, it wouldn't be correct 50% of the time anyway. Also like forecasting weather in 7 days advance... isn't going to be accurate at all, but it makes for good TV.
Yes, after all this is just a game :p
 

Gerild

Guest
Alot of people have had problems with TSR due to A. They're Recruitment style. B. Their Leadership. C. Their "tactics" (mainly referring to spy-games and disbanding). However, since I have joined TSR a major overhaul has occurred. One, we have a high point average and are doing really well overall in the wars we are fighting, our recruitment/members worked out really well for us. Two. Our leadership has changed drastically in the last few days. The old Tribune of power (JDC, Danger, and Cabbage) have stepped down and a new council has taken their place, which i think gives us a much stronger leadership. Three. Most of that happened before my arrival, and since taking a council spot we've ended those tactics. JDC did a lot of recruiting which gave us a MRA vibe to everyone. However if you notice, our average has stayed high as well as our ABP and DBP. The members we have are good ones, very few are bad players. In a game like this, true strength comes from having numbers of GOOD players, which based on every stat, we have alot of good players. TSR has been dealing with a world PR problem for a while now, however many people's displaced their dislike with TSR leadership to TSR as a whole. I believe at the rate we are going, that will change though.
 

scrubbyjimbob

Guest
... TSR has been dealing with a world PR problem for a while now, however many people's displaced their dislike with TSR leadership to TSR as a whole. I believe at the rate we are going, that will change though.
When in any group be it an alliance/guild in a game to real life affiliations the actions of the few will reflect on the whole, that's just the way it works when you associate with a group. As far as like/dislike of TSR, when you bill yourselves as a "top rated group of elites", you are naturally going to be painting a huge target on your backs. Did you expect otherwise?