Hmm... I know that most people aside from the people in the -TW-, SB, WP, WWPA and IC Bank alliance won't know who I am or think I've done anything worthwhile, but the alliance know who I am and I'd like to put in my two cents.
lokiju's reasoning for multi battling is because they have less people, and according to his reasoning this means that in order for the fight to be fair, they need to resort to multi-battle tactics. I see a flaw in this belief. Forts only hold a certain amount of attackers/defenders, right? And if I am correct, the resistance/Miestas has by far enough people to max out one battle, and though the joint alliance has more people than the Resistance and Miestas, what difference does it make if we can only fit in 50 or 42 of us into a small fort, and you can max it out as well.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but that's still a fair fight. Regardless of your numbers, multi battles will not be fair, because believe it or not, we are only human (or images on a screen, whatever). It's not like we can just get every single member of the alliance to get to the right fort on time and be online every single time the multi crap goes on.
Yes, we are more than capable of taking back the forts using the same tactic, but where's the fun in that? Isn't it more fun to have a completely maxed out large fort attack than multiple battles with 10-20 defenders that lasts for a whole 5 rounds. And since this is just a game, it is about having fun. So, people stop having fun, they quit the game. People quit the game, the world dies. The world dies, your side can't do anything either. Who wins in that situation? Please tell me. I don't want to see this game die.
I say all this respectfully and just to get a point across, not to bash you or your tactics lokiju, although they are ruining the game and I am thoroughly against the way you use them.
PS. (Irrelivant to the rest of the post) Are you just trying to bump up your post count tom? You don't seem to be saying much at all.
@OAN, I will add you to my mail list.