War Thread 3:]

Studpuppy4427

Guest
Update this friday ;)
I see you are anxious for an update because you managed to take one of our cities :)
 

Studpuppy4427

Guest
Update

Update:

War 1

Participants:
The Efficacious vs. Damn Yankees

TE conquests:
this week - 3
all time - 12
DY conquests:
this week - 1
all time - 1

War 2 (lol)

Participants:
The 13th Legion vs. Jasmine Union
The 13th conquests:
This week - 0
All time - 51
JU conquests:
This week - 0
All time - 0

War 3 (this war will probably be discontinued if EE doesnt recover.)

Participants:
Damn Yankees vs. Eagles Eye
DY conquests:
This week - 2
All time - 10
EE conquests:
This week - 0
All time - 2

*Let me know if you are aware of any other wars going on that i have not listed so i can add them in the next update. Feedback is welcome.
 

erato51

Guest
Sorry Stud -- TE didn't have three conquests against DY this week.

You got three cities off inactive players, two from DAveWithers and one from Ninjatrix, and neither one was contested in any way.
"No activity" + "no contest" = No conquest.

Cheers
 

Studpuppy4427

Guest
I beg to differ. Inactive players are still the responsibility of the alliance. If they are inactive, you should have kicked them. TE conquered 3 cities that were identified as being part of your alliance. The conquests may have been unfair or uncontested but that doesnt change the fact that a conquest is still a conquest and the fact that TE conquered 3 of your alliances' cities.
 

erato51

Guest
That's your definition. My definition is subjugation, defeat, mastery, domination. Can't do that if there's no one available to be defeated.
 

Studpuppy4427

Guest
That is a unique definition to say the least. You are entitled to your opinion; however, this is my war thread so i will count conquests by my definition.
 

goins420

Guest
erato, love and respect the alliance, but...

However you want to define it, a city changed hands. Only two reasons to keep an inactive member within the alliance: you plan to take his cities or he will be back soon to play on as before. If you plan to take his cities, support should have been there to create reports of the attack and defend as needed (we get BPs for support now, of course, kinda mixed feelings on that) or if he is coming back he now has city slots to plan around. Either way, DY lost, The E gained. At this stage of the game it is all about BPs to expand anyways, neither side will knock a player out of the game unless boredom sets in or RL has to be addressed...

Most importantly, make sure you are having fun, no reason to waste time on this bs if it isn't enjoyable ;)
 

tiesto08

Guest
I beg to differ. Inactive players are still the responsibility of the alliance. If they are inactive, you should have kicked them. TE conquered 3 cities that were identified as being part of your alliance. The conquests may have been unfair or uncontested but that doesnt change the fact that a conquest is still a conquest and the fact that TE conquered 3 of your alliances' cities.
indeed,as long the conquest is recorded in stat sites(grepostats for example) any city that changed hands is a conquest,the attacker/conqueror isnt responsible for the inactivity;-)
you always have the booting option for the yellow/red ones!

funny keep smiling.jpg


cheers
steve
:pro: :pro: :pro:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

erato51

Guest
Stud, very few things scare me. Death and disease in real life, but beyond that not so much.

I'm really busy and there's no point contesting definitions beyond what has already been said. Regardless of Grepolis stats, we don't feel subjugated or defeated so you can your definition and we can have ours.
 

Studpuppy4427

Guest
Update

Update:

War 1

Participants:
The Efficacious vs. Damn Yankees

TE conquests:
this week - 7
all time - 19
DY conquests:
this week - 0
all time - 1

War 2 (lol)

Participants:
The 13th Legion vs. Jasmine Union
The 13th conquests:
This week - 0
All time - 51
JU conquests:
This week - 0
All time - 0

War 3

Participants:
Invictus vs. The Efficacious
Invictus conquests:
This week - 0
All time - 0
TE conquests:
This week - 4
All time - 25

*Let me know if you are aware of any other wars going on that i have not listed so i can add them in the next update. Feedback is welcome.
 

Studpuppy4427

Guest
Update

Update (sorry its so late):

War 1

Participants:
The Efficacious vs. Damn Yankees

TE conquests:
this week - 8
all time - 27
DY conquests:
this week - 2
all time - 3

War 2 (lol)

Participants:
The 13th Legion vs. Jasmine Union
The 13th conquests:
This week - 0
All time - 51
JU conquests:
This week - 1 :O
All time - 1

War 3

Participants:
Invictus vs. The Efficacious
Invictus conquests:
This week - 0
All time - 0
TE conquests:
This week - 8
All time - 33

*Let me know if you are aware of any other wars going on that i have not listed so i can add them in the next update. Feedback is welcome.
 

Iggywigge

Guest
Support

Hey guys, I need support. I am constantly being attacked by whr1964s of The Remnants alliance. He has attacked me now at least 6 times. Desimated my army and keeps stealing my resources. I can't build because of this, i need some support
 

erato51

Guest
*Let me know if you are aware of any other wars going on that i have not listed so i can add them in the next update. Feedback is welcome.

Studster -- you've left out the fact that Dukes and 13th have declared war against DY, presumably after consultation and with the consent of TheEmpire

This has made every waking moment when I get to logon to Nu absolutely thrillingly special as I get to try to figure out what front is getting the most damage. I'm trying to learn that Rambo routine where I:heh: can singlehandedly take on at least three opponents and win (SW)(SW)(SW), but GEE, I'm not there yet. Meanwhile I am increasingly interested in historical examples where the outnumbered and outflanked win.

Cheers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQNsqEzH06E&feature=fvsr