The Phalanx [300] declares war on Aesir [Aesir].

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

 Hucbold wrote:

we see The Phalanx sieging our inactives in BL. This is their PR war (aimed mainly at their own side) but its expensive. It is no secret that Aesir have lots on inactive accounts or accounts that are barely ticking over. This is actually a tactical advantage.

Even if [Aesir] is 80% inactives, presumably if we keep destroying your cities, we will come across the remaining active players at some point. Given that some of the besieged players launched troops or visibly prestige built, I would say we at least drew blood on 4 of the 11 razed cities. If you are claiming that other Aesir Broken Lands accounts are inactive, then why do they show positive build, research, and trade score growth? That smells like a farm to me, and permasat farms are worth eliminating. I wrote about that months ago in Yellow is the New Red.

I would also like to remind people about something you said on 3 October 2017:

 Hucbold wrote:

There will be a United Illyria Security Council. It will consist of the leaders of 10 alliances. The five alliances with the most towns will automatically be members - this membership may change as town numbers change. The other 5 members will be elected annually by the other alliances. The election will be performed via a forum thread. Each voting alliance will cast 1 vote per town that they own at the time of the election and may only vote for one alliance. Alliances may nominate themselves but alliances may not vote for themselves. In council votes, council members cast the number of votes for the towns they represent - either the number that voted for them or, for permanent members, their current number of towns.

At the time you wrote that proposal, Aesir was still in the top 5 alliances by number of towns. Yet here you are, in full view of the community, admitting that most Aesir towns are held by inactive accounts. Why on Earth would people agree to give you power and prestige, just because you have amassed the biggest pile of dead wood? The very notion is absurd, much like your theory that a mostly dead alliance is a "tactical advantage".