Warrior Declaration of WAR

[StevieG]

There are very clear factions in TE, which btw gets changed up and mixed about a little every round as we start over again. An AA like warriors who were sanctioned I believe, but not very high up the rankings are now #1 for example. OP has grown into a military machine with their very active and high average NS, even eclipsing LE now, who used to probably be the very best, and still are up there, just not as elite as OP atm. PS have also come on in the last few rounds etc. Every now and then you also get new AAs (or returning) like Duckroll who jump up straight into the top 5,6, or 7 etc.

The political landscape changes all the time, and we dont need binding treaties here in order to have fun. Some may have a few, others may have secret ones, while others may have gentlemens agreements etc. We also, all (or most) have our friends, but even as Gov of certain AAs change, you get variation in the interaction between AAs.

Add in the flag running aspect to the game, how that mingles and in some cases interferes with AA politics, and you can see that what we have here is a very explosive exciting game that radically sway at any given time.

Pretty much, my point is that this game isnt low on numbers because it is boring. All it takes is either good activity levels, or being involved in significant AAs that play a part in shaping the world round after round. Im pretty sure that most people just arent active enough to fully enjoy the game, hell, Im not that active really either, yet I still get my fun out of the game. If you want dramma, excitement, fun, and arent getting it, go create it. All you need is 20 active competent nation builders, and you have yourself an elite army right there.

[Frostfirefox]

[quote name='StevieG' timestamp='1289420322' post='2509565']
There are very clear factions in TE, which btw gets changed up and mixed about a little every round as we start over again. An AA like warriors who were sanctioned I believe, but not very high up the rankings are now #1 for example. OP has grown into a military machine with their very active and high average NS, even eclipsing LE now, who used to probably be the very best, and still are up there, just not as elite as OP atm. PS have also come on in the last few rounds etc. Every now and then you also get new AAs (or returning) like Duckroll who jump up straight into the top 5,6, or 7 etc.

The political landscape changes all the time, and we dont need binding treaties here in order to have fun. Some may have a few, others may have secret ones, while others may have gentlemens agreements etc. We also, all (or most) have our friends, but even as Gov of certain AAs change, you get variation in the interaction between AAs.

Add in the flag running aspect to the game, how that mingles and in some cases interferes with AA politics, and you can see that what we have here is a very explosive exciting game that radically sway at any given time.

Pretty much, my point is that this game isnt low on numbers because it is boring. All it takes is either good activity levels, or being involved in significant AAs that play a part in shaping the world round after round. Im pretty sure that most people just arent active enough to fully enjoy the game, hell, Im not that active really either, yet I still get my fun out of the game. If you want dramma, excitement, fun, and arent getting it, go create it. All you need is 20 active competent nation builders, and you have yourself an elite army right there.
[/quote]

Even my idea on an ideal TE has flaws. Just like all others.

The problem I suffer, is that these alliance wars that are going on now, just aren't entertaining. I feel like I am playing little league baseball or something. Then after the game is over everyone walks past each other and says 'good game' shaking hands/giving high fives. So it's a friendly atmosphere but wars last what... an average of 3 days? To me white peace seems like exactly what I have been preaching. We started this war, realized it was boring, so we are offering you white peace. Or does a quicker white peace make it more friendly? There are some exceptions to this, but I think I have only seen 2 surrender threads in... a long time. I'd join any alliance if I knew they had a plan to shake things up. I would then be contributing to the TE war cycle. But until then it seems pointless to come out of rogue status where I can actually achieve a near month of war straight. (even though people tend to rage over stuff like that. for some reason rogues aren't deemed human or something. I swear :3 I am human. I promise you.) However not much war this round :3 I've been beaten up by dear old Ernie

[bcortell]

[quote name='Frostfirefox' timestamp='1289434416' post='2509783']
Even my idea on an ideal TE has flaws. Just like all others.

The problem I suffer, is that these alliance wars that are going on now, just aren't entertaining. I feel like I am playing little league baseball or something. Then after the game is over everyone walks past each other and says 'good game' shaking hands/giving high fives. So it's a friendly atmosphere but wars last what... an average of 3 days? To me white peace seems like exactly what I have been preaching. We started this war, realized it was boring, so we are offering you white peace. Or does a quicker white peace make it more friendly? There are some exceptions to this, but I think I have only seen 2 surrender threads in... a long time. I'd join any alliance if I knew they had a plan to shake things up. I would then be contributing to the TE war cycle. But until then it seems pointless to come out of rogue status where I can actually achieve a near month of war straight. (even though people tend to rage over stuff like that. for some reason rogues aren't deemed human or something. I swear :3 I am human. I promise you.) However not much war this round :3 I've been beaten up by dear old Ernie
[/quote]
I agree about white peace. I'm personally not a fan of it unless it really is a white peace situation. If you lost, man up and say it. Props to RE last round who did it and the Abyss this round.

[StevieG]

Think of the AA wars in the first month of the game as merely appetizers for the main course. The bigger and better wars usually come at the end as the AAs who won their early wars usually clash in the end.

[paul711]

[quote name='StevieG' timestamp='1289439893' post='2509851']
Think of the AA wars in the first month of the game as merely appetizers for the main course. The bigger and better wars usually come at the end as the AAs who won their early wars usually clash in the end.
[/quote]
Who would have imagined that TE wars would play out like a tournament

[Thomasj_tx]

What is the real difference between White Peace and Surrender, other than one side grinding their heels in their opponents face on the OWF?

I have been on the "winning" side several times and never felt the need to grind my opponents face into the ground. War stats speak for themselves. Why the need to add insult to injury?

And on the losing side, when it is obvious, talk to your opponent, reach peace, be a good sportsman and move on.

As Paul said, this is a tournament, a prize fight, a game that lasts for 60 days, not indefinately.

Edited November 11, 2010 by Thomasj_tx

[Judge X]

Here are my feelings:

White Peace - a mutual cessation of warfare from dueling Alliances

Surrender - When a declaring Alliance has some statistical advantage ([b]large[/b] or small) but declares war for personal reasons. Then loses miserably and is threatened with the continuation of warfare to the point of being un-fun for them (to the end of the round). (See our war)

[KingBilly1]

P.s There's no chance that we can win this fight. There's a time in TE when an AA has had to much control of the number 1 spot and Rome has had it like the past 6 rounds or more I'd go for peace and accept defeat and let another AA have it I don't think anyone could hold that spot longer than Rome so pat on the back and move on

Well done Warriors an AA that hasn't even been what 5th? not too sure havn't paid much attention lately but sign in and get $%&@ed up lol, but yeah well done guys and I wish you the best of luck

[Clash]

[quote name='Thomasj_tx' timestamp='1289443473' post='2509945']What is the real difference between White Peace and Surrender, other than one side grinding their heels in their opponents face on the OWF?

I have been on the "winning" side several times and never felt the need to grind my opponents face into the ground. War stats speak for themselves. Why the need to add insult to injury?

And on the losing side, when it is obvious, talk to your opponent, reach peace, be a good sportsman and move on.[/quote]
I'm with this - if nothing else it's a matter of good sportsmanship, period.

Besides: War in TE is meant to be fun. Without someone to war, how could you have that fun? The only peace tW will ever offer is white peace. Nothing more ever offered, nothing more ever accepted. No terms. No surrenders. No hard feelings. We salute our remaining pixels at each other and we go on, happy with that war and hungry for the next one.

Make no mistake about the part about "nothing more ever accepted." We're never going to surrender, ever. What's the point in that? I only buy infra to blow it up - and take someone else's with mine. There will never be surrendering to save it. Even in the most unsportsmanlike of curbstomps, there'd eventually be a silver lining - sooner or later we'd all be out of attack range

[quote name='EddyH' timestamp='1289465131' post='2510261']P.s There's no chance that we can win this fight. There's a time in TE when an AA has had to much control of the number 1 spot and Rome has had it like the past 6 rounds or more I'd go for peace and accept defeat and let another AA have it I don't think anyone could hold that spot longer than Rome so pat on the back and move on

Well done Warriors an AA that hasn't even been what 5th? not too sure havn't paid much attention lately but sign in and get $%&@ed up lol, but yeah well done guys and I wish you the best of luck [/quote]
Thank you for the wars, truly. It was great fun. You did much better this time than last round, and that's the truth. You shed a lot of fat off RE since last round - and I think we might have picked some of it up. I hope you all had as much fun as we did, cause that's what this war was for

We do not accept your defeat, only your peace.
Thanks again and good luck!

[Schad]

I'm in favour of white peace most of the time in TE, for one reason: alliances are more likely to take risks when seeking out wars if they don't have the specter of declaring defeat at the end. The converse is true, as well...terrible declare-downs look a little more tasty if you get to make a big deal when they surrender.

There is one exception: when a much smaller opponent defeats a much larger foe, I think that they've earned the right to a victory thread, as with Hell Patrol/Abyss this round.

[Frostfirefox]

Surrenders aren't supposed to be humiliating. And even so, only smack talk which most people look down upon is the most to happen (and already happens in white peace scenarios). Things should be looked on as friendly, but also as competitive. If they have truly lost, they should man up and say so. If they haven't lost, there is no need for white peace, otherwise that just means the war is boring. Your claiming it respectable to stop what TE is about to be overly friendly? Wars never really took up a lot of time in TE with build up and other assorted things. But now they last even shorter time because your afraid to play competitively. You guys are playing Tennis with your girlfriend/boyfriend and your afraid to play normally and to score a point because it might hurt her/his feelings.

Stats show what was destroyed, but tend to not compensate for proud players. I believe down declares happen when [proud or not] leaders want to avoid the

[quote]specter of declaring defeat at the end[/quote]

With surrender, I hardly doubt any alliance will start up a POW camp and force the players to do irrational things with military and wonders. Reparations are impossible to send. And if these things happen I'm fairly sure the alliance doing so will receive an abrupt defeat by others. Surrender just shows the victor, because stats aren't always helpful when pride comes into play.

As for adding insult to injury. That already happens even on white peace scenarios. Because each side tend to claim victory. The CDT versus LE thing a few rounds back ended up dragging into next round with both sides claiming the victory of the war. (although idk if it formally reached white peace. more like informally by nation delete i think) If white peace already has a victory holder whats the point of it? Isn't declaring white peace meaning that neither side was victorious. A more neutral ground.

[Thomasj_tx]

[quote name='Frostfirefox' timestamp='1289496227' post='2510463']
Isn't declaring white peace meaning that neither side was victorious. A more neutral ground.
[/quote]

Absoluely not. White Peace is a mutual agreement to end hostilities. I can not recall one situation of White Peace that I have been involved in where there was not one clear "victor".

[KOwens06]

[quote name='Thomasj_tx' timestamp='1289497865' post='2510479']
Absoluely not. White Peace is a mutual agreement to end hostilities. I can not recall one situation of White Peace that I have been involved in where there was not one clear "victor".
[/quote]

Exactly, either the one alliance lost or won. You can tell that by how each alliance is fighting, how the moral is, and how white peace is achieved. White Peace is us saying lets move on, Find other people to beat into the head.

[Frostfirefox]

Ok, I understand the concept of white peace now, but there have been unclear cases of the victor in the single war.

But white peace shortens war. You white peace to gain a victor? A lot of white scenarios the war could have easily continued and the losing side could have easily changed things around with a bit of creative thinking.

[quote]
As Paul said, this is a tournament, a prize fight, a game that lasts for 60 days, not indefinately.[/quote]

Hard to have a prize fight if peace is reached in 3 days. Or when a serious war takes place its end of round. If this is truly a tournament, only the strongest alliances should remain strong at the end of the round. The overall victor should be the last standing alliance or the strongest of the remaining. It does not last indefinitely, so why is everyone holding back? This is what I mean by competition. Everyone is praising how this is a Tournament and then just have mindless war. Ya, I could make an alliance and just mindlessly attack those with close stats. Or I can actually try to destroy the upper tier alliances and come out on top. Dominance is the major political thing I have been saying. Thriving to take out those ahead of you through cunning strategies. Everything is so cold and precise now. People plan out the amount of wars they will have. They study the peoples stats to precisely and choose the closest. This is why I say Confusion is good. He is not cold and precise. He tries different things every round. Sometimes he fails sometimes he succeeds. At least he isn't afraid of failing. Although at this moment I really can't do much because TE seems to think I'm barking mad for challenging it's current systems, but if I had the time to round up a few players from other area's I wouldn't just be planning out 1v1 wars. I'd be planning out how to make #1 without mass recruiting. And not #1 on the point charts, since member count plays such a large effect, but number one on NS.

[Thomasj_tx]

Frostfirefox, you seem to be shooting feckless arrows at all of the Alliances' wars. Why don't you define for all of us what a "good" war is in your mind.

[StevieG]

[quote name='Frostfirefox' timestamp='1289502164' post='2510531']
Ok, I understand the concept of white peace now, but there have been unclear cases of the victor in the single war.

But white peace shortens war. You white peace to gain a victor? A lot of white scenarios the war could have easily continued and the losing side could have easily changed things around with a bit of creative thinking.



Hard to have a prize fight if peace is reached in 3 days. Or when a serious war takes place its end of round. If this is truly a tournament, only the strongest alliances should remain strong at the end of the round. The overall victor should be the last standing alliance or the strongest of the remaining. It does not last indefinitely, so why is everyone holding back? This is what I mean by competition. Everyone is praising how this is a Tournament and then just have mindless war. Ya, I could make an alliance and just mindlessly attack those with close stats. Or I can actually try to destroy the upper tier alliances and come out on top. Dominance is the major political thing I have been saying. Thriving to take out those ahead of you through cunning strategies. Everything is so cold and precise now. People plan out the amount of wars they will have. They study the peoples stats to precisely and choose the closest. This is why I say Confusion is good. He is not cold and precise. He tries different things every round. Sometimes he fails sometimes he succeeds. At least he isn't afraid of failing. Although at this moment I really can't do much because TE seems to think I'm barking mad for challenging it's current systems, but if I had the time to round up a few players from other area's I wouldn't just be planning out 1v1 wars. I'd be planning out how to make #1 without mass recruiting. And not #1 on the point charts, since member count plays such a large effect, but number one on NS.
[/quote]

I can understand some of your points. However, this domination idea you have of an AA or AAs trying to dominate the game is not what most AA leaders are going for out of their own choosing. Im fairly confident that domination could easily be achieved, as in the early rounds we had it, and later on WOLF also dominated for a bit. How long it will last is anyones guess. Opponents will work a way to bring you down, or you will succeed and dominate for a round or two until the members in those AAs become bored with the game plan, or government will fallout with eachother etc. The only way I could see this idea panning out is if you got a massive AA that could control the game on its own. That will likely never happen, as there are a few elite AAs who could all come together if the #1 got to big and dominant.

So, now that we can see that domination strategy not being able to work anymore there are some alternatives left to AAs and AA leaders.

War practice. Many SE AAs use TE for war and co-ordination practice, as well as interaction between AAs.

Fun. Some just play to have fun, whether that means they tech raid their hearts out or whatever.

To be in a relevant AA. AAs like LE, PS, and OP currently, are not the #1 AA in the game, yet they are round changers. The actions they take influence the round as it is played out, and these are some of the biggest political powers. The reason is that they are big and strong. In OPs case, not very big in numbers, but very high ave NS. Other AAs such as RE, TPC, and now tW are also significant players, mainly due to their size, although they are not that elite. Thats not to say that a few nations in an AA cant be elite on their own merit.

You also have new AAs who come in, such as FARK this round and DR last. They usually have the numbers to play a little part, but dont ussually have as many experienced members. Other AAs hang on the lower regions of the sanction race, contributing in their own way. Sometimes ending up on winning sides of a war, other times on the losing end.

I guess a goal of an AA could be to remain relevant for the entire round. This means no suicide wars early in the round. They get saved for later on in the round. What does that mean? Well, pretty much looking for an AA that you can hit, that wont be a stomping, but also so that you dont cripple yourself too much. This is so that you can retain nations in the top 5% and hold nukes for your later wars.

And Ill quote myself now.
[quote]Think of the AA wars in the first month of the game as merely appetizers for the main course. The bigger and better wars usually come at the end as the AAs who won their early wars usually clash in the end.[/quote]

[Frostfirefox]

[quote name='Thomasj_tx' timestamp='1289504267' post='2510567']
Frostfirefox, you seem to be shooting feckless arrows at all of the Alliances' wars. Why don't you define for all of us what a "good" war is in your mind.
[/quote]

A long one. A challenging one. One that is vibrant and alive. Where things change as enemies create plans to win.

Not so much a head on bash out where 2 days in you can essentially see a trend on how the war will turn out. (generally the first striker is always on the good side of the trend, except in a major up-declare)

[quote]... as there are a few elite AAs who could all come together if the #1 got to big and dominant.
[/quote]

This is the vibrant war I am talking about. Where more strategies take place than a gander at the stats. Where people have a goal in mind and a reason to push forward and fight besides their leaders told them too.

[Confusion]

[quote name='StevieG' timestamp='1289534227' post='2510902']
I can understand some of your points. However, this domination idea you have of an AA or AAs trying to dominate the game is not what most AA leaders are going for out of their own choosing. Im fairly confident that domination could easily be achieved, as in the early rounds we had it, and later on WOLF also dominated for a bit. How long it will last is anyones guess. Opponents will work a way to bring you down, or you will succeed and dominate for a round or two until the members in those AAs become bored with the game plan, or government will fallout with eachother etc. The only way I could see this idea panning out is if you got a massive AA that could control the game on its own. That will likely never happen, as there are a few elite AAs who could all come together if the #1 got to big and dominant.

So, now that we can see that domination strategy not being able to work anymore there are some alternatives left to AAs and AA leaders.

War practice. Many SE AAs use TE for war and co-ordination practice, as well as interaction between AAs.

Fun. Some just play to have fun, whether that means they tech raid their hearts out or whatever.

To be in a relevant AA. AAs like LE, PS, and OP currently, are not the #1 AA in the game, yet they are round changers. The actions they take influence the round as it is played out, and these are some of the biggest political powers. The reason is that they are big and strong. In OPs case, not very big in numbers, but very high ave NS. Other AAs such as RE, TPC, and now tW are also significant players, mainly due to their size, although they are not that elite. Thats not to say that a few nations in an AA cant be elite on their own merit.

You also have new AAs who come in, such as FARK this round and DR last. They usually have the numbers to play a little part, but dont ussually have as many experienced members. Other AAs hang on the lower regions of the sanction race, contributing in their own way. Sometimes ending up on winning sides of a war, other times on the losing end.

I guess a goal of an AA could be to remain relevant for the entire round. This means no suicide wars early in the round. They get saved for later on in the round. What does that mean? Well, pretty much looking for an AA that you can hit, that wont be a stomping, but also so that you dont cripple yourself too much. This is so that you can retain nations in the top 5% and hold nukes for your later wars.

And Ill quote myself now.
[/quote]

Now that all the whining in this thread is done with (Or is it?), We can have a real debate.

Well Stevie, Tournament Edition is interesting to me and I'm sure others as well because apart from War practice and making new friends, every round changes. And I'm one of those who believes with every round or few rounds there should be a new bad guy in town. Honestly, I'll tell you right now I'm not a fan of the type of wars currently held in TE. Which are basically "You're #1 and I'm #2, so let's have at it." It doesn't make anything interesting or even cause a game changer. Now, I'll tell you right now, As most of you know, I'm a fan of Global Wars where you don't know who will win or what can happen until the last few days of the war. As I see it, the current problem is, alliances are too afraid of losing all their pixels in the early stages of the round. I'm not going to name anyone in particular since several AAs practice this method every round. Anyways, they basically attack an alliance they know they can beat while not receiving many damages, early in the round. They do this because they want to get off easy and not be targeted by another alliance, not because they love war. Which is why I believe we're seeing such aggressive rounds very early in the beginning. It's not the aggressive early rounds I'm against, I'm just against alliances fighting just so they won't be hit for the first few weeks, and I personally haven't seen it backfire. It's also nice to see the tension building up to a war, however, unlike Normal Edition it doesn't take so long. One of the reasons I find some of TE's older days better is because there was more rivalry. Take the RE-MHA Wars, they were friends for a few rounds, then they turned into rivals, Anyone who payed attention could've seen it coming. That's what makes things interesting, not knowing what may happen and who will attack you just because they want to defend a friend that's the whole point of TE. When I planned some of my "fail" coalitions, I always took into account possible alliances who will defend the alliances we're hitting, which is why we pre-empted them if we had the resources. Now, that was fun unlike all these 1v1 wars. Everyone has their tastes I suppose. Anyhow, What I'm trying to say all these wars happening for no reason except for their 'love' for war is just booooooring. Do something new for a change. Those are just my 2 cents.... I hope we can have a real nice debate instead of just pure garbage and whining.


Confusion.

[KOwens06]

[quote name='Confusion' timestamp='1289536217' post='2510935']
When I planned some of my "fail" coalitions, I always took into account possible alliances who will defend the alliances we're hitting, which is why we pre-empted them if we had the resources. Now, that was fun unlike all these 1v1 wars. Everyone has their tastes I suppose. Anyhow, What I'm trying to say all these wars happening for no reason except for their 'love' for war is just booooooring.[/quote]

So because you think its boring we should do something different? Not gonna happen. We don't do what other people want.

You see we don't flag run thats not our mantra, we don't sign treaties, we don't do anything but war. If you want that go to another alliance. We fight we attract fighters. If you don't love war and you don't fight we don't want you plain and simple. Even the round I was #1 the whole time til the end I wasn't flag running I wasn't trying to win I fought. I went into wars expecting nukes. I didn't care about anything like that, I like war plain and simple. Thats how our alliance works. There are many alliances in TE.

Many other alliances do different things and attract different people. We might rogue at the end for fun, to screw up flag runners but thats about it. There are 3 people that play TE, people who like war, people who like strategy at the end, and noobs who get tech raided and quit. These things aren't going to change. A coalition while interesting, really doesn't do anything but create a war and guess what peace comes from it. So because we can't think of any other reason to fight but we want to, we don't sugar coat it. We declare up because we want a challenge, so to you #2 vs. #1 may not be a challenge but we add more alliances and hope we get a challenge. Thats why we play and fight. Global wars are the same thing to me. I fight I win or I lose.

I think that covers my ideas on TE and why I play it.

[Confusion]

[quote name='KOwens06' timestamp='1289538033' post='2510958']
So because you think its boring we should do something different? Not gonna happen. We don't do what other people want.

You see we don't flag run thats not our mantra, we don't sign treaties, we don't do anything but war. If you want that go to another alliance. We fight we attract fighters. If you don't love war and you don't fight we don't want you plain and simple. Even the round I was #1 the whole time til the end I wasn't flag running I wasn't trying to win I fought. I went into wars expecting nukes. I didn't care about anything like that, I like war plain and simple. Thats how our alliance works. There are many alliances in TE.

Many other alliances do different things and attract different people. We might rogue at the end for fun, to screw up flag runners but thats about it. There are 3 people that play TE, people who like war, people who like strategy at the end, and noobs who get tech raided and quit. These things aren't going to change. A coalition while interesting, really doesn't do anything but create a war and guess what peace comes from it. So because we can't think of any other reason to fight but we want to, we don't sugar coat it. We declare up because we want a challenge, so to you #2 vs. #1 may not be a challenge but we add more alliances and hope we get a challenge. Thats why we play and fight. Global wars are the same thing to me. I fight I win or I lose.

I think that covers my ideas on TE and why I play it.
[/quote]

Yes, I know that. Everyone has their way of playing, and only they can change it. Anyways, to make a war interesting doesn't mean you need a Coalition or anything of the like. But take what I was saying, Warriors Declared war on RE and Company, now, everyone was almost sure of what the end result was going to be. I don't see the fun in that. Sure, you guys did what you thought would be a challenge, and I'm not against that. But you guys knew you weren't going to REALLY enjoy the fight. Once again, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with your style of playing as an alliance or yourself, but going into a war knowing you probably won't take much damage/you'll come out on top isn't exactly very worth fighting for, in my opinion. Honestly, though, Almost every alliance does something similar...which is what I find boring. So, I guess I find myself agreeing with Stevie and Frost, We need changes in strategy...Something new. Taking risks in the beginning etc.

Confusion.

[KOwens06]

[quote name='Confusion' timestamp='1289538763' post='2510964']
Yes, I know that. Everyone has their way of playing, and only they can change it. Anyways, to make a war interesting doesn't mean you need a Coalition or anything of the like. But take what I was saying, Warriors Declared war on RE and Company, now, everyone was almost sure of what the end result was going to be. I don't see the fun in that. Sure, you guys did what you thought would be a challenge, and I'm not against that. But you guys knew you weren't going to REALLY enjoy the fight. Once again, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with your style of playing as an alliance or yourself, but going into a war knowing you probably won't take much damage/you'll come out on top isn't exactly very worth fighting for, in my opinion. Honestly, though, Almost every alliance does something similar...which is what I find boring. So, I guess I find myself agreeing with Stevie and Frost, We need changes in strategy...Something new. Taking risks in the beginning etc.

Confusion.
[/quote]

Honestly I see that point a new strategy would be fun and in all honesty we waited so long for war is we were hoping someone would attack us. Its that we would like to be blitzed, not on the offensive, I agree that gets boring. And yeah when we set up the targets the first thoughts in my mind were, RE is going to roll over, and the six targets I fought all did. The first 3 sent peace the next day and the next three just turtled. I mean we do try to find different things. Like Where we worked with WAPA and TFK two rounds ago and took on #2 and #5 alliance if I recall correctly. But things got shot through, We have other things planned and I hope they work out because they will be much much better than what we did. But Yeah we want to be blitzed, I personally want to see how we can mobilize in that way. But thats just my view and I know we have different views on alot of things but I agree something needs to be changed as it is monotonous, not saying I don't have fun destroying infra just I don't really need to think because I know the strategy that works best for anarchy and how to max damage so.... yeah I agree.

[Judge X]

I have a bit of an idea. Why don't we have alliance increments. Let's limit the amount of members to alliances to 30 and 60. 30 for small alliances and 60 for large alliances. Then we would not have huge alliances and would have more alliances at say 60 nations who are able to pick from a large amount of 60 nation alliances. Same for 30 nation alliances. If you cannot bust the, say 51 nation mark for your alliance then you have to shed to become a 30 nation alliance. This would change statistically the face of TE. Then the playing field would be leveled quite a bit and make some alliances have to rely more on strategy than as some rely on, sheer numbers. I don't know, sounds crazy in my head but hey it also sounds like more diverse wars. You also can find ghost flag runners easier and can actually have a 3+ alliance war that become interesting. Kinda like bracketing TE like a true tournament. You guys need to leave the politics in SE though. It'll ruin TE for the noobs who just wanna learn how to fight and for the experienced who wanna fight without all the BS of SE. If you don't like it pack sand and twist your web of lies and half truths elsewhere(politics). We have 60 days of fun not 6 months of "I don't like that you raided a Pink team Nation. I'm gonna roll your AA." Or something along that line.

[Frostfirefox]

[quote name='JudgeX' timestamp='1289540759' post='2510988']
You guys need to leave the politics in SE though. It'll ruin TE for the noobs who just wanna learn how to fight and for the experienced who wanna fight without all the BS of SE. If you don't like it pack sand and twist your web of lies and half truths elsewhere(politics). We have 60 days of fun not 6 months of "I don't like that you raided a Pink team Nation. I'm gonna roll your AA." Or something along that line.
[/quote]

I still think the lack of politics will be bad. Not SE politics where its all treaty signing and complaining, but TE politics. TE politics as in, a motive for war. Strategically using political aspects of the game for wars. I don't know if I even thought about the current motive for wars or brought it up. My view on things have shifted as others participated in the discussion. But it really is as confusion has said. Who didn't look at this war and think, oh goodbye RE (no offense RE but given round history as a mass recruiter, it happens).

The war was decided by everyone before anything really happened. And its already at a peace. But overall we all do have our own ways of playing as has been said but never trying anything outside of the comfort zone of each and everyone will only limit things. Maybe we will stumble upon a greater way of play through exploring. I've played this system for a few rounds now. As has everyone, I'd just find it fun to try something else now. At an artists standpoint, the first idea generally never is the best, so my ideas were not the best at first but I did try. With a collective of everyone though something good should ensue.

[Clash]

[quote name='JudgeX' timestamp='1289540759' post='2510988']You guys need to leave the politics in SE though. It'll ruin TE for the noobs who just wanna learn how to fight and for the experienced who wanna fight without all the BS of SE. If you don't like it pack sand and twist your web of lies and half truths elsewhere(politics). We have 60 days of fun not 6 months of "I don't like that you raided a Pink team Nation. I'm gonna roll your AA." Or something along that line.[/quote]
I'm with this. If you love politics that much go play SE and stay out of TE. Seriously, most people hate pure politicians and for many, many, good reasons not worth wasting pixels on. I hate all that crap, and I think it's a main reason SE is down to about 20,000 players. SE sucks, TE is much more fun. The loss of TE players is just reflective of the SE loss. Most people have real-life restrictions on their free time; they just don't have time for all this stupid convoluted stuff. I think more of that tripe will only mean less players, not more. Less fun and not more fun, as well.

Do what you want tho. You want to play the game a certain way, you're welcome to go it. No one can stop you. Just sitting around crying because people won't play the game the way you want them to, won't do anything tho.

[Clash]

[quote name='Frostfirefox' timestamp='1289542467' post='2511001']The war was decided by everyone before anything really happened. And its already at a peace. [/quote]
The war was predicted by everyone, not decided. It was decided on the battlefields. Besides, it's not even half way through the round yet. This war lasted long enough. It's like you've never even played before. The bigger wars that grind nations down to nothing happen at the end of round. If you grind your nation down to nothing now, you've thrown away half the round. That's not fun - that's stupid.