| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Starry 
Postmaster
Joined: 20 Mar 2010
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 612
|
 Posted: 02 Dec 2013 at 14:44 |
Ah the double standard...yet again. I'm not here to argue the point.
If you attack Harmless or their Confeds, expect to become a target.
If you assist our enemies in anyway shape or form in their ops, expect to become a target.
It is no less than our enemies are doing to us.
|
|
CEO, Harmless?
Founder of Toothless?
"Truth never dies."
-HonoredMule
|
 |
Halcyon
Forum Warrior
Joined: 17 Aug 2012
Location: Israel
Status: Offline
Points: 360
|
Posted: 02 Dec 2013 at 12:08 |
I won't comment on H?'s status, but it seems that they are now attacking other alliances without even declaring war...
Two sieges on NAAM without a war declaration.
|
|
Darkwords
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1005
|
Posted: 02 Dec 2013 at 09:33 |
 Sloter wrote:
True Brandmeister but in need player with lvl5 sovs can just divert to using only 3 lvls of those 5lvl that he claims.Both large and small cities can replace troops at equal speed as long as they have good basic res production.Dont mistake player with lvl 5 food sovs as someone who can not divert them to lvl 3 military sovs within a day or two.
In prolonged conflict player with 27k pop will reduce its pop by demolishing buildings for troop reduction upkeep to get his hands on more basic res.In peace time there is no way to know how effectiv any player can be, it is only after conflict starts.Sovs and pop can be replaced, lost or gained fairly fast.I dont think that current rankings can indicate anything special that player can not change within few days.
If anything number of claimed sq can maybe indicate what player is doing currently.Player with smaller number of claimed sq but with higher lvl of them has finished his troop production in peace time and is concetrated only on food prodction, while player with larger number of claimed sq is in process of training his troops.Player with 8 lvl 5 food sovs can quickly change those to 20 lvl 3 sovs for troop training after he loses his armies.
|
This is true sloter, but now they fixed the sov so that we can de-level our claims by a level at a time, it is pretty silly to keep paying the res points for those lvl5's if you only have a lvl3 building on them. You can always reclaim when you think you may have peace.
|
|
Darkwords
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1005
|
Posted: 02 Dec 2013 at 09:29 |
|
Post deleted: Don't want to train my adversaries.
Edited by Darkwords - 02 Dec 2013 at 10:00
|
|
Sloter
Forum Warrior
Joined: 14 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 304
|
Posted: 02 Dec 2013 at 09:29 |
|
True Brandmeister but in need player with lvl5 sovs can just divert to using only 3 lvls of those 5lvl that he claims.Both large and small cities can replace troops at equal speed as long as they have good basic res production.Dont mistake player with lvl 5 food sovs as someone who can not divert them to lvl 3 military sovs within a day or two.
In prolonged conflict player with 27k pop will reduce its pop by demolishing buildings for troop reduction upkeep to get his hands on more basic res.In peace time there is no way to know how effectiv any player can be, it is only after conflict starts.Sovs and pop can be replaced, lost or gained fairly fast.I dont think that current rankings can indicate anything special that player can not change within few days.
If anything number of claimed sq can maybe indicate what player is doing currently.Player with smaller number of claimed sq but with higher lvl of them has finished his troop production in peace time and is concetrated only on food prodction, while player with larger number of claimed sq is in process of training his troops.Player with 8 lvl 5 food sovs can quickly change those to 20 lvl 3 sovs for troop training after he loses his armies.
|
|
Brandmeister
Postmaster General
Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
|
Posted: 02 Dec 2013 at 03:23 |
|
Caco, I have to disagree with #2. A sov 5 square is almost invariably a farmstead, and that is by far the weakest use of the square. I am much more wary of players with 20x sov 2 or 3 than I am of players with big cities ringed by 8x Farmstead 5's. Especially if I think those cities rely on heavy geo boosts or low taxes. Maybe those bigger cities can hold lots of troops, but they cannot quickly replace them. An 18000 pop city is probably far more dangerous than a 27500 pop city in any sort of prolonged conflict. Therefore I would say that claimed squares is a much better approximation of power than sov levels.
|
|
Caconafyx
Greenhorn
Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Location: Stamford, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 87
|
Posted: 02 Dec 2013 at 01:22 |
Darkwords,
To address your 3 points:
1. Then you fall into the trap of making false assumptions as to the purpose of a city's sov. Purely as an example 95% of my sov. is for food production, with the remainder boosting basic resource. Plus in your comment you are combining sov. territory and city count which are two entirely separate measures on the Active Alliance page with neither begetting the other.
2. I didn't say more claims of lower sov. is better. I said that the game doesn't factor in the level to which a square has been sov'd. that the game therefore considers 3 x level 1 sov's as being of greater value to the alliance ranking system than a single level 5 sov. when in reality (and assuming the squares are of equal value) the single level 5 would be more productive.
3. Do you not think that there is a strong possibility that a 25K city has more troops than an 8K city? Harmless? average out at 19,339 pop. per city. Mcrow with the same number of players as H? average out at just 12,549 pop. per city. Unless an entire alliance are traders then those numbers will invariably translate into significantly larger armies
I would also posit this: with 5 commanders per city I can send my armies out and back to claim sov. within let's say 1 hour (if I am being lazy). Assuming that I have the Serjeanty research completed I could in the space of typical day on Illy (9am - 11pm) claim 70sq. in one day per town or 140sq in 2 days OR 1400sq. in total across all ten of my cities.
Single-handedly I would have just claimed close to 15% of vcrows entire land within 48 hours. It would be expensive, it would be utterly pointless but what it would do is completely (and artificially) inflate my alliances ranking position. All I need are 8 other idiots to join an alliance with me and do exactly the same and we would have the #1 alliance in Illy... apparently
|
|
Darkwords
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1005
|
Posted: 01 Dec 2013 at 20:56 |
Caconafyx wrote:
Let's not forget that land is a meaningless means of measuring dominance, especially when the system merely recognizes the number of plots a player/alliance has and not the extent to which they have been developed.
In other words, to the game it is better to have 3 x level 1 sov. than 1 x level 5 sov.
When we look at other players we look at how many towns they have and how big those towns are as a measure of their size and capability not their sov. so why look at an alliance differently? |
Because your sov and city count determines how quickly you produce troops as an alliance perhaps? and yes as you said more claims at lower levels is better, therefor those with more land should in theory be better. and who is this 'we' whoever they are they must be pretty dumb if they use city size to judge an alliances strength. That would be like justifying a war on the terms of, 'but they have a little more pop than us'.
|
|
Brids17
Postmaster General
Joined: 30 Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1483
|
Posted: 01 Dec 2013 at 20:36 |
|
It doesn't really mean anything, it's just a change in leaderboard rankings. While I do think it's nice to see someone else on top for a change, since H? has held that position for as long as I can remember, it really doesn't hold anything more than personal significance.
|
|
|
|
Hora
Postmaster
Joined: 10 May 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 839
|
Posted: 01 Dec 2013 at 19:24 |
Hm, perhaps they could directly compare their military strength by doing war with the second powerful alliance...
... oh, that's what they're doing already... ...
...so we just wait and count heads afterwards, then we see who has been strongest  |
|
Tweet
Harmless? dethroned - what does this mean?
