Wars of Pagasae

DeletedUser15275

Guest
Well I'm very sorry to bother you dude. True Fear has 18 players in it and we are taking on...what, 100? Plus all their NAPs and pacts and buddy buddy BS they have going on. But I'm nitpicking. Ya right. The real question is: why cant they put us away?

We are fighting back against the MRA, and that's not in the script. I was supposed to beg Synergy to let us join and then turn around and help them eat my team. Well, thanks but no thanks.

Youre right tho Ive never seen anyone on the externals criticizing enemy leadership before...how novel and inventive of me.

We will continue to fight the MRAs. Peace out.
You guys did the exact same to EPIDEMIC in kas, difference was EPIDEMIC still came out on top. Unfortunately, they had to merge with NSD for the WW's.
what was it? TLB+TF+rags+siput corp+tigers+ all your naps and pacts?

But that's old news, my point is you got the short end of the stick in diplomacy in this world. If given the opportunity, I'm sure you and RX would get the whole server on your coalition again lmao.

Hypocrisy.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
You guys did the exact same to EPIDEMIC in kas, difference was EPIDEMIC still came out on top. Unfortunately, they had to merge with NSD for the WW's.
what was it? TLB+TF+rags+siput corp+tigers+ all your naps and pacts?

But that's old news, my point is you got the short end of the stick in diplomacy in this world. If given the opportunity, I'm sure you and RX would get the whole server on your coalition again lmao.

Hypocrisy.
We wouldn't be pact'd with em :)
 

jameslongst

Strategos
You guys did the exact same to EPIDEMIC in kas, difference was EPIDEMIC still came out on top. Unfortunately, they had to merge with NSD for the WW's.
what was it? TLB+TF+rags+siput corp+tigers+ all your naps and pacts?

But that's old news, my point is you got the short end of the stick in diplomacy in this world. If given the opportunity, I'm sure you and RX would get the whole server on your coalition again lmao.

Hypocrisy.

Don't come up in here with that old stuff lol. And don't sling the H word around so freely my friend lest skeletons fall out of your closet as well.

I played the David and Goliath thing with Epidemic for months. Remember how that one worked out anyone? Spolier alert: They couldn't put me away either. I bet that came up in the Synergy counsel...if they deliberate at all which is not at all clear. And in Bhrytos is was a team called The Resistance that beat on me. And in Sinope they were called the Usual Suspects and they were bad to the bone also. None of em put me away. Are you saying this is somehow different?

The faces change (somewhat). The sloppy "buddy buddy" NAP with everything diplomacy does NOT change. But I will continue to fight against it with all those willing to stand up to that kind of gameplay. We stand on our own two feet, and we ask for nothing, and we expect nothing except a hard time from some simming gold whores.

And don't ever, ever make an assumption about what me and RX will do. That will make something out of you, and umption.
 

Pro-Grep

Strategos
I find it funny when disappointed players call Synergy MRA. For me because of the big size alliance mustn't be called MRA. This is alliance with majority of players coming from Kasmenai together and in this world besides old members there was strict criterias for recruiting. For me MRA is alliance who keeps inviting players besides their skills, points, BP and location just in order to make their alliance look bigger. I find difference between these two cases.

Also I find it funny when alliance chooses "Solo" diplomacy and then they start whining that their opposite alliance has NAPs or PACTs. Who stopped you from doing so? You choose to be alone so get used with it and stop whining. This is strategy game and making NAP or PACT if it's needed isn't a shame.

And at the last, when two different alliances attack someone at the same time that doesn't mean that they have PACT and are running Op together.
 

jameslongst

Strategos
I find it funny when disappointed players call Synergy MRA. For me because of the big size alliance mustn't be called MRA. This is alliance with majority of players coming from Kasmenai together and in this world besides old members there was strict criterias for recruiting. For me MRA is alliance who keeps inviting players besides their skills, points, BP and location just in order to make their alliance look bigger. I find difference between these two cases.

Also I find it funny when alliance chooses "Solo" diplomacy and then they start whining that their opposite alliance has NAPs or PACTs. Who stopped you from doing so? You choose to be alone so get used with it and stop whining. This is strategy game and making NAP or PACT if it's needed isn't a shame.

And at the last, when two different alliances attack someone at the same time that doesn't mean that they have PACT and are running Op together.


Well spoken. Finally we are getting up to high school senior level composition. Let's do this by bullet point:

1. You telling me everyone in Synergy is super active every day? You're looking me in the eye and telling me that?

2. Yes it is a shame. Stand on your own two feet for once. If you dare.

3. And at the last: Get all your NAP buddies together and attack whenever you want. Bring it on good sirs. Once you have an alliance with that many branches, what's a few more teams added to it matter?

The fact is the attacks are terrible. In fact, I could go on and on about how bad your attacks are. You guys just don't have to try. You fully intend to rely on the momentum of your fatness to lurch you over the finish line. Which is sad cuz there are some really great players, really great people on Synergy. My friends. Must be boring as hell over there.
 

DeletedUser54537

Guest
I'll anwer that for you

1. No, like you we have our share of people on VM and players who help less than most people during OPs

2. We could do it, but its not strategically beneficial. You choose not to have NAPs and Pacts, its your choice and it means that there is a big chance that you won't survive to see the end of the world (considering your size)

3. NAPs are agreements to not attack each other, they do not mean that we help each other

and please show evidence of bad attacks. By the way your alliance too have bad attackers.
 

Pro-Grep

Strategos
Thanks Notmad for your answer and I'll add few more:

1. You james already mixed meaning of MRA and activity.

2. "He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot, will be victorious." Sun Tzu. I hope you catch the idea. Facing everyone around is equal of insanity and in my opinion shame is when you choose one way and after loosing you whine.

3. And as my friend said above NAP isn't pact. Get used that few alliances can attack separately.

Yes, I'm not good orator but I hope I have expressed what I wanted to say.

PS> As we know victory is victory so scores say it all who has bad attacks and who not and don't answer on this with that, that we are more then you. It's your problem.
 

DeletedUser54537

Guest
By the way the score right now is 8 to 174 for Synergy

So please, tell me which strategy is more successful, no pacts or NAPs or a couple of strategical NAPs
 
By the way the score right now is 8 to 174 for Synergy

So please, tell me which strategy is more successful, no pacts or NAPs or a couple of strategical NAPs
Funny thing about this is you (synergy) practicly have no strategy and just send multiple unescorted or badly escorted CSs or OLU attacks.
You're also not very good since you litteraly had to send 40 attacks to one city and still couldn't get a decent LS attack infront of that CS that got sent to my latest LOST city. Wouldve been easy to snipe but got told to let it go (not an excuse, btw)

Fair play anyway. Please contineu to attack us (ME PLEASE) my 180k stack isn't high enough for me
smiley_emoticons_thumbs-down_new.gif
 

Pro-Grep

Strategos
It sounds really funny for me when you guys accuse us having terrible attacks. Imagine how terrible defense you have that with our horrible attacks we still manage to take 174 cities.
 
not ALL of you have terrible attackers but definitly half of your players are. Sorry :(
Please try taking one of mine that are not 4 hours out for my birs, that is just not fair :/
AND don't forget to feed more FTS, I love myself some FTS for dinner.
 

DeletedUser54537

Guest
It sounds really funny for me when you guys accuse us having terrible attacks. Imagine how terrible defense you have that with our horrible attacks we still manage to take 174 cities.

the reason they have "better" attacks than us is because only their best 5 players have offence, the rest are too busy turtling up

If we only looked at our top 5 we would have much better attacks than them
 
the reason they have "better" attacks than us is because only their best 5 players have offence, the rest are too busy turtling up

If we only looked at our top 5 we would have much better attacks than them
Hmm wonder why that would be.. Wouldn't be because they are almost twice as big as our top 5? lol. But what do you even expect of us, that we just go full offense when you are hitting us? That is just stupid.
 

DeletedUser54537

Guest
Hmm wonder why that would be.. Wouldn't be because they are almost twice as big as our top 5? lol. But what do you even expect of us, that we just go full offense when you are hitting us? That is just stupid.

I'm asking you to give us a good fight
 

DeletedUser54537

Guest
Sorry, I cleared a PRE-STACKED city last night, and woke up this morning to 4K birs and 8K DLU. You Expect me to have LS to clear all of that while sniping close to every CS I see on our forums?

If you're as good as you say you are you (as an alliance) should be able to clear that
 
Top