DeletedUser
Is there any chance of pm,ing me ingame with what your idea's are m8.
There we go again .. eishI am confused Marley, what are you talking about as I seriously have no clue.
Even if there was a better option... other than a TW plan?Im all for helping to stop this spread of multi's all over the world to work together with like minded people would be great
As we all do but Desi just can't be trusted anymore.. because of what he did to his fellow alliance & that TWv2 gave him a fort for appreciation for saving their forts from attacks.. for calling desi a spy i can assure you he just wants to create a balance to achieve good honest battles not the subterfuge and deciet that you seem to deal in these days....
From what I've heard.. you have alreadyTaking a fort is a tough job yet we still don't approve of the use of this tactic. Would it make it easier for us to take ALL of the forts on this world...yes, but we don't need to or want to. We'll take them in a clean fight. Do you really want V2 to start using multi battles to take forts?
Now, look at it the other day. Say the smaller alliance has 150 active members and the enemy alliance has 300 (these numbers are not meant to be accurate, just an example). Both these numbers are enough to max any size of fort on its own. However, when the smaller alliance chooses to use multi battles, they're giving the larger alliance the chance to utilise their number advantage. Say you attack two mediums and two smalls. Out of the four battles, the alliance with 300 active fort battlers would have the numbers to max all four of these battles, while your alliance of 150 members could only max two of them at best (a medium and a small, or two smalls with members left over for the remaining two battles). A more realistic scenario is that the smaller alliance would have a low attendance at all battles, or concentrate on one battle, either way would not have an effect due to the big alliance's numbers covering each fort adequately, not to mention moving numbers to one fort when they see the majority of the enemy congregating there. I know it's not realistic to expect 300 active fort fighters, but this is just an example and its principle still comes in to play; the bigger alliance may not be able to max all forts but it will be able to get more fighters at each one.
What do you think gives you a better chance of a victory? 100 vs 84 in a medium, or 50 vs 84 and 20 vs 42 in a medium/small multi?
Then you can take into consideration that the larger alliance is, in theory, more capable of launching multi battles of greater magnitude. So if they choose to retaliate the numbers would end up along the lines of 15 vs 42 at each of the big alliance's defences and then 50 vs 30 at the big alliance's attack. Wow, now the small alliances has lost two attacks and a defence just because they had in their heads that it would be easier to attack two forts rather than one when they don't have the numbers to fill them both, than have an even chance of taking a fort in a one on one battle.
Please note ALL (with opinion) .. I am not for multi's.. (but seriously was).. as I found out when Jakkals went Bos.. how tiring it can be .. and for little reward
BUT.. for the life of me.. I can't understand why I can't attack more forts at the same time.. and filling them.. (strictly filling them).. but not allowed to do so..
.. because the enemy cannot match us and thus just because TW+v2 say so
But i did warn all of you. Remember the discussions we had about the treaty with Ken Gunslinger and JoeMoer? Remember me telling you all that if they would continue to violate the things we have build together, i would do anything in my power to stop them. I even said if there was no other option left, i would join V2 and take everyone who wanted with me. Trust me, i am a long way from joining V2, but i refuse to work together in an alliance with people who want to destroy everything we worked for.
I am looking for friends who share the ideas we always had. I truely hope you are one of them. You know you are always welcome.
Hypothetically.. (others... look up the word if needed)
Lets say.. (as I've been shouting on the roof tops).. lets say that in a million to 1
I get an army to attack your alliance.. not a fort.. but your alliance in general (but dealt with in fort battles)
But my army is 400 people and yours is 200.. now I attack a fort.. and only 140 of us (large fort) are allowed in.. tell me..
..must the other dudes sit on the hill and watch while their alliance fights.. or will it be acceptable that they can move on to the next fort.. and fill that one too
Nope. Waiting for people to step up. Got a few reactions about players who agree with my ideas.
Hypothetically if Bill gates was my Grandpa I'd buy innogames and turn the west into a dress up game..
Another fool that doesn't know Arthur from Martha .. and not answering the question
Please Futurama.. answer the question.. so the noobs can give their traps a rest
WWPA was is resistance for how long 3-4 month?And yet you have the audacity to criticize Desi. Please check the facts first before copy pasting what your noob leader said in your internal forum.A leader who BTW sacrificed his whole alliance for one foul mouthed friend.WWPA are lika parasites who have never achieved anything on their own.Desi should've just kicked WWPA out instead of dissolving VLR.
Anyway I know some low levels think V2 is weak just because we wanted to follow the
treaty.Well I have seen too many of those come and go over the years to take them seriously.After a few months all of those noobs will be gone and V2 will still be here.I know Tom won't leave but it doesn't matter whether he stays or not.
I am not saying that V2 is invincible.One day some great alliance may rise and gain no 1 sport.But it certainly won't be these bunch[EC,ATW]