Dan77

I think the price to end the war just went up. Looks like Grealind would rather see his members destroyed or leave though while he sits out of range with all the money. 100% tax ftl.

^^^ Agree entirely with HR. I love it when opponents look at their own stats and think they could lose, so do nothing or decomm. 1 players sacrifice can very often mean the others get the upper hand instead of all of them going down. They can even potentially get the player who sacrificed back to gaining initiative.

The lists are compiled from the data of every player, yes. Every player doesn't make it onto the lists though as I've only shown top 50's.

Guardian are #3 I added a per capita rank to the alliance leaderboard. Rose are doing better than expected at #14

Interesting fact: Looking at the in game leaderboards and in particular the offensive boards (soldiers killed/tanks destroyed/aircraft destroyed/ships sunk/total infrastructure destroyed) 43 out of 50 places are taken by members of Mensa HQ, Arrgh or Political Pirates. Now here's what people have been nagging me for. Up to date leaderboards. Overall leaderboard, alliance leaderboard and individual alliance leaderboards for a good number of alliances. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BBOl0x3PQNg3oAJFZpfkjT4BscNWfFDbvmpFbMgFXGU/edit?usp=sharing Arrgh!

Oh please no. Leave tactically inferior, expensive, point scoring weapons in the game. That way, people can waste all of their money on them while the rest of us concentrate on what's important. People need to be able to make bad decisions. It provides for a much more interesting game.

Congrats guys. Well deserved! o7 Arrgh!

Stop shitposting in a peace thread or I'll exclude you from the peace deal

I managed to get a quick round of payback in on Winona Other than that, yeah, I think you avoided us entirely.

This was a fun war against formidable opponents o/ Really proud of how Arrgh members stuck with it and went with our strategy with no complaints. We have a great bunch of people and I salute you all o7 Mensa also showed that their activity and co-ordination is unparalleled. We're not bad at that ourselves but not in such numbers. It all lead for an entertaining war. I think this is a good time for peace all round.

No Arrgh! No vote. We were fighting this war before it was even cool and we're still going

Well that's a bit harsh. Was it a terrible game before you introduced VM? I take the point about active duty in the military. IDK what kind of internet access they get. Obv. not a priority when dodging bombs and bullets. I find it odd that people would play a game like this if they can go months without being able to play it though. Extended trips to developing countries? How many people fall into that category. I doubt many at all and those that do are probably still regularly online. So you've obviously decided anyway. Somebody just proposed to me that we DoW on war avoiders. That could be fun! Who wants to be on the naughty list?

It's used almost exclusively for war avoidance. Alliances can protect people who are genuinely on vacation anyway, whilst they continue to earn income. It's the 21st century. You can log in briefly once a day (not that you need to) from pretty much anywhere in the world.

Your move UPN

If it's only honourable to come to Rose's aid, why declare on Roz Wei (who are already defeated) when you could declare on Mensa? Or even SK? Looks like a token effort to appear like good allies without risking anything to me.

I'm still trying to figure out the downside to this statement. Nope, there isn't one. Smash all the pixels!

However this turns out, this was a poorly executed blitz. You can always join us at low infra Rose and updeclare, except maybe those who whaled themselves out of range. #teamwork The next week or so should be interesting anyway however this goes.

I don't know why people keep playing the "protecting new players" card. It's a complete fallacy, as proven by the figures given by Tywin. Repeating it doesn't make it true. The game mechanics are designed in such a manner that low infra isn't an advantage. The negative income and military recruitment caps make people with less cities more than a match for that type of build when organised properly. Plus you're not likely to recover all that negative income and the cost of resources used by attacking new players. People are arguing based on an assumption of a problem that doesn't actually exist. A maximum military approach with decent levels of infra is more dangerous to new players and is something that has been happenning the whole time but nobody seems to mind that because it doesn't suit them for that to be changed. Sheepy has made changes to encourage players to join alliances (objectives for example). These alliances should then be doing their best to protect their new players from raiders of any kind. If you leave them cast adrift in score from the rest of your alliance, there is every chance they will be beaten whether their attackers have relatively low infra or not.

Great stuff! Thanks very much

The current defensive wars. A triple declare by guys with massively more military than me. They declared on too many people though and logged in too infrequently. There were also some tactical errors. A couple of Mensa's other guys did a better job of it on a couple of our members and are currently having some success.

Like Vietnam? Or Syria? No that one guy at the bottom of my range can't beat me. Similar examples apply for most of the people in the game though. That's why we have alliances. Mensa's co-ordinated attacks should have beaten me though. You guys just messed it up a little.

This is silly. The current war is an extreme example. High cities and very low infra is not easily sustainable. I've been operating on a -$1.2m income. Also, because of population: My max tanks has been around 4,250 Max troops around 85,000 The nations in this range can definitely cope with that if they are organised. Even now the minimum score I can declare on is around 600 and I'm beaten down militarily right now. I have been far from unbeatable in this range. It just so happens that Mensa and SK were nicely assembled above our range and that we could pick them off one at a time with 3 co-ordinated attackers. And when they sent people down in score who really should have beaten us, they did a bad job of it and attacked too many at once whilst allowing 3 of our nations to hit them at the same time. This change will just mean that the larger alliances and those who try to dominate with loads of treaties (stifling the game) will be able to beat anyone else and keep them down forever. This keeps the underdog down while the big boys can do what they want. Another step towards farming pixels. Don't do it!

hehehehehhehe indeed.

Yeah, you're wrong. Their military has grown every day for the last 11 days and is at 31.81% military score which is almost identical to Mensa's, only Rose have significantly more members.

We started getting victories quite a while ago. 30% of Mensa and SK is defeated and being passed around for however many more rounds. The rest are no longer doing us any harm. I still doubt Rose will attack though and so I guess Mensa top tier is fairly safe for now.