| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
jcx 
Forum Warrior
Joined: 09 Oct 2013
Location: Tallimar
Status: Offline
Points: 281
|
 Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 04:26 |
|
Tally Board
Alliance Razed - Captured - Exodus - Abandoned
Group ABC
H? -
BSH -
DB -
TCOL -
TVM -
T-O -
~NC~ -
RE -
RES -
Group XYZ
DARK -
SOON(TM)-
SHADE -
VCROW -
-TG- -
EE -
AEsir -
XckX -
ALT -
UCROW -
NAAM -
KCROW -
Note: Abandoned and Exodus must be war related. :D
|
 |
Kumomoto
Postmaster General
Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224
|
Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 02:12 |
|
Good point, Tath, but what land area doesn't take into account is players going into and out of alliances... Those actions don't necessarily have to do with the war and could potentially majorly shift the land occupied.
All-- I have never said that my count is gospel. It is the best info I have. Duke and Elmindra told me here that they have others that have been razed. I have asked them for whom so that I can get accurate info and I hope they provide it, so that we have a more complete picture...
|
|
Tatharion
Wordsmith
Joined: 11 Jun 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 139
|
Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 01:55 |
To Daufer:
I beg to differ for three reasons:
- You must have identified on the onset those "sanctuary" alliances and included them in the global camp at war so what Alliance X from Red camp loses, then Alliance Y from Red camp gains for no effect.
- You must dynamically readjust which alliance is part of a camp and which isn't and there are simple ways to do this.
- The "noise" you are mentioning tends to fade if you look at long enough intervals between reports (a week seems an adequate interim period) for net changes. Further you should focus on the camp-wide net change of the sum of plots and not on each individual alliances.
As to Kumo's remark, which is mostly correct, I would reply that it will be unlikely that all or even a substantial portion of players in one given 75+ members-alliance will be in the same "sov-economic" phase at any given time, so the "cyclical" effect will be greatly attenuated. But more importantly the possible "cycles" actually gives good strategic info about the situation and gearing of their opponents!
Edited by Tatharion - 15 Nov 2013 at 01:58
|
|
Be without fear in the face of your enemies. Be brave and upright, that God may love thee. Speak the truth always, even if it leads to your death. Safeguard the helpless and do no wrong.
|
|
Brandmeister
Postmaster General
Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
|
Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 01:47 |
|
Oozra, their policy seems to be per player, not per alliance. So if an alliance razes 1 Coalition city, each player in that alliance can lose 1 city. There are so many players involved, if you took 1 city from each of them, it would be dozens.
|
|
Sisren
Forum Warrior
Joined: 03 Feb 2012
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 446
|
Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 01:47 |
 Oozra wrote:
so , i asked where in your policy it says you shall pay triple the damage you receive and you ignore my post ?
i m trying to merely understand your policy ... it seem to have a lot of flaws . or did you need more time to come up with a way to twist the truth to come up with an excuse ?
|
not sure its triple damage in most cases. the policy had been to only hit 1 city, until the recent climate change...
|
|
Oozra
New Poster
Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 8
|
Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 01:42 |
|
im basing my question with the numbers given . it seem clear the coalition has done more damage than receive . it shouldn t be with this policy ...
|
|
DeathDealer89
Postmaster
Joined: 04 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 944
|
Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 01:42 |
Well I suggest the automated numbers just say (Alliance x (raze count) war Alliance y (raze count))
Imagine it as an extra thing on the diplomacy page.
I'm not sure if there would be a way to capture how many exoduses there are. Since 1 exodus may be due to war and another exodus could be to grabbing a better spot.
|
|
DeathDealer89
Postmaster
Joined: 04 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 944
|
Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 01:39 |
|
Oozra, as the Anti-Coalition has said its no where near triple damage. You have been ignored because your simply wrong and thus your question doesn't even apply.
|
|
Daufer
Forum Warrior
Joined: 14 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 332
|
Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 01:38 |
Tatharion wrote:
With regards to keeping track of the situation I am offering a fairly easy-to-automate suggestion.
Those players dropping out of an alliance and/or moving around will induce some noise at an alliance-level but it will tend to cancel itself out over time and while adding all alliances on each side.
|
Players entering warring alliances from outside (at least six by my count) and moving into other alliances to re-arm (god only knows how many) will permanently muddle any automated numbers.
|
|
Oozra
New Poster
Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 8
|
Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 01:36 |
|
so , i asked where in your policy it says you shall pay triple the damage you receive and you ignore my post ?
i m trying to merely understand your policy ... it seem to have a lot of flaws . or did you need more time to come up with a way to twist the truth to come up with an excuse ?
|
|
Tweet
Harmless Wartime Policy Announcement