DeletedUser8807
Guest
i actually agree with wardy
DeletedUser1511
Guest
Yeah your opnion is more worthless than playing tw is on a CV
DeletedUser
Guest
Wardy is just mad because nobody ever allies with him.
DeletedUser8807
Guest
ok i really dont care about you wardy you act like you own the forums wardy well guess what you dont so get over it
DeletedUser
Guest
TW can be very useful on a CV, a thorough knowledge of server based, browser interactive games through account verification can be a handy thing to have.
DeletedUser8807
Guest
haha stupid wardy
DeletedUser1511
Guest
DeletedUser8807
Guest
thats funny lol great pic
DeletedUser
Guest
No matter your opinion on if its fun or not, if you don't think diplomacy is useful, you're an idiot. Thats like saying YOU KNOW WHAT GUYS DEFENDING IS DUMB IM JUST GONNA ALWAYS ATTACK BRO. :icon_rolleyes: Also war=diplomacy 
Not attacking someone until you have enough troops to deal with their tribe? Guess what guys, diplomacy. I think you all fail to understand what you are doing :icon_redface:
Not attacking someone until you have enough troops to deal with their tribe? Guess what guys, diplomacy. I think you all fail to understand what you are doing :icon_redface:DeletedUser
Guest
No matter your opinion on if its fun or not, if you don't think diplomacy is useful, you're an idiot. Thats like saying YOU KNOW WHAT GUYS DEFENDING IS DUMB IM JUST GONNA ALWAYS ATTACK BRO. :icon_rolleyes: Also war=diplomacy
Yeah, defending is dumb during start up too... Unless they have cats there is no way anyone should be defending at start-up.
NOBODY has said diplomacy is useless. A few people are getting called out on saying diplomacy is pointless during start-up.
If defending during start-up is stupid, then wars during start-up are stupid, and thus DIPLOMACY during start-up is stupid.
If I am running a tribe, and a player of mine is being outgrown, and is in danger of being cleared... Either (A) Have a tribe member backtime the fella attacking my tribemate, or (B) if he does get cleared have him restart on the rim because he obviously doesn't have the skill to be in the aggressive core area.
Tbh, A tribe should cater to its better players anyway. Diplomacy limits the growth and expansion of a good player AT START-UP NO, IT DOES NOT ALLOW YOU TIME TO BUILD UP MORE TROOPS.
If you are already smaller then the other guys, the difference will be exponentially LARGER a week from now.
This isn't rocket science.
If you wanna hug each other and build then go play farmville.
By LATE START-UP, most tribe will begin to define themselves. Only here can you really MAKE A STRATEGIC DESCISION, on who is worthy of an alliance or NAP.
I am not saying that my way is the only right way, and I will admit there are exceptions to the rule. I will say however any idiot to stand there and say diplomacy is beneficail at start-up is a NOOB
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
I can't help but laugh at that post. :lol:
DeletedUser
Guest
Raise your hand if you have built a tribe that dominated an entire core and around 15 K's in 3 months from the start of the world. Come on anyone but me? Pervis has, he can comment, would agree with me Im sure. Anyone else done it? Anyone at all. I'm listening. Thought so, I guess that makes me the foremost expert on the subject here? Unless someone thinks them to have a better leading resume than myself. Pervis does not many others.
Have you been top 20 in over 20 worlds? Im waiting, feel free to tell me. I highly doubt you have been, and I highly doubt you know what you're talking about. I speak from experience, understanding, having done what I speak of. You on the other hand are likely speaking out your butt.
Step by step break down of your stupidity below
Yeah you know when I had an 8k/8k sp/sw stack surrouned by 4 top 20 players attempting to noble me I was seriously debating kicking the support, you know cause it was useless against being targeted by nobles and stuff.
Defending during start up is stupid:icon_confused: You've never lead a tribe have you. Ive done wars at start up! R4KI did a few.
I loled at this, nauz gets cleared all the time. So do a lot of people who can out grow their area. Also what do you do when they back time the backtime, you back time that backtime and then they backtime that backtime, and then they backtime that. :icon_confused: yeah smart.
You know what happens when the tribes I lead stack a member. The person losses their army and is rimmed end of story
Alright, for the record, I have lead multiple #1 tribes, some of the most dominate in the history of .net. I have also been in the top 20 somewhere over 20 times. I am fairly certain I know how to grow and expand as a good player.
Its not an issue of who is bigger, its an issue of who you piss off 40 n00bs attacking one pure O player=one catted out and cleared pure O player.
No, but I probably understand that better than you as well.
Who said anything about hugging?
:icon_confused: Who uses naps.
:lol: You're an idiot.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser1511
Guest
HAHAHAHA
That is the single most stupid post i have ever read. You are speaking the to only player to have won a start up world. I think i know what is good for start up dont you :lol:
DeletedUser
Guest
Erm, hrvoje did too.
I was close, and I agree.
I was in matt's uber tribe, I took what I learned by creeping on him, and went on to lead two rank one tribes (on w54 and 55).
Matt is right, wardy is right, they are both better players then gettysburg and ruffus, matt is a better leader, and should wardy try (oh how it pains me to say this) he probably would be too.
In short:
And Diplomacy>almost anything else
matt>diplomacy
DeletedUser
Guest
[11:46:23 PM] Uncle Kam: I bet he was watching gay porn while writing that
i agreee
DeletedUser
Guest
Raise your hand if you have built a tribe that dominated an entire core and around 15 K's in 3 months from the start of the world. Come on anyone but me? Pervis has, he can comment, would agree with me Im sure. Anyone else done it? Anyone at all. I'm listening. Thought so, I guess that makes me the foremost expert on the subject here? Unless someone thinks them to have a better leading resume than myself. Pervis does not many others.
Have you been top 20 in over 20 worlds? Im waiting, feel free to tell me. I highly doubt you have been, and I highly doubt you know what you're talking about. I speak from experience, understanding, having done what I speak of. You on the other hand are likely speaking out your butt.
Step by step break down of your stupidity belowYeah you know when I had an 8k/8k sp/sw stack surrouned by 4 top 20 players attempting to noble me I was seriously debating kicking the support, you know cause it was useless against being targeted by nobles and stuff.
Defending during start up is stupid:icon_confused: You've never lead a tribe have you. Ive done wars at start up! R4KI did a few.
I loled at this, nauz gets cleared all the time. So do a lot of people who can out grow their area. Also what do you do when they back time the backtime, you back time that backtime and then they backtime that backtime, and then they backtime that. :icon_confused: yeah smart.
You know what happens when the tribes I lead stack a member. The person losses their army and is rimmed end of story
Alright, for the record, I have lead multiple #1 tribes, some of the most dominate in the history of .net. I have also been in the top 20 somewhere over 20 times. I am fairly certain I know how to grow and expand as a good player.
Its not an issue of who is bigger, its an issue of who you piss off 40 n00bs attacking one pure O player=one catted out and cleared pure O player.
No, but I probably understand that better than you as well.
Who said anything about hugging?
:icon_confused: Who uses naps.
:lol: You're an idiot.
What part of defending is useless BEFORE cats did you not get? Nobles are obviously a little higher on the threat scale then cats are...
As far as leading a dominating tribe... Try smallest tribe in the top 20 on uk4. Friskytam knows it, it was her tribe that I ended up allying with. Yeah, it didn't stay around forever, but it was a pretty good tribe for a non-premade.
Look, I never professed to know everything or be tw god like some here act.
Seriously though, outside of a pre-made how do you even know what tribes are worth an alliance at this stage?
You don't, its impossible.
I can however show you example after example after example of tribes that have early diplomacy that fail. I can also point out dominating tribes that had
And yes, I have been top 20 on both worlds I played from start-up. Don't have the time or desire to lead a tribe anymore.
DeletedUser1511
Guest
You can show tribes that fail. Sure, they failed because they sucked. Show good tribes tribes that showed the same policies. That werent on little backwater worlds like world 4.uk. BI and those joke tribes are trash.
You dont profess to be a tw god. Well depending on what you define a tw as. If one could exist they would tell you the same thing we are. Wonder why?
Because we be right, you are wrong.
We are right because we are better than you. Then end.
Top 20 2 times!!!!!!!!!!:lol:
DeletedUser
Guest
Well you have to wonder, is someone a good leader because they get big name players? I don't think you can say anyone is a better leader. Leading isn't the same as playing, when you farm and noble, and do all the necessities that come with it. Leading is an art, playing TW is a hobby or addiction. Most likely addiction that you deny and say sucks (wardy ;P).
DeletedUser
Guest
Such ridiculous logical fallacies right there.
So if I were a football player and a "better" footballer came up to me and said "goal keepers are useless in football" he must be right because he is better than me?
I don't think so.
Or if I was talking with someone and I said "a more attacking strategy will make you win more games because you score more" and the other guy said "a more defensive strategy will make you win more games because you don't get scored on" well because I am right then the other guy must be wrong.
I don't think so.
Please take some lessons in arguing using valid logic in order to produce a reasoned argument.
That said, I'm not actually disagreeing with the points it appears you are trying to make. Diplomacy is probably the most important aspect when it comes to leading a tribe. The thing about tribalwars though is that there is never only one way to do things successfully, every world is different and every tribe involves a different situation and different decisions for anyone who has lead tribes on different worlds. A bit like with planned economies and market economies most countries find the right balance somewhere in-between and although they may be successful using that particular balance they will never know if using a different balance they could be even more successful, similarly successful tribes rarely get to where they are employing absolutely no diplomacy or total diplomacy and again find the right balance somewhere in-between but then again a tribe which relied heavily on diplomacy may have been just as successful or more using very little of it, one can never know. This could very well be true if the cause of the success is mainly not due to the diplomatic strategy but actually to some other factors, in such a case any diplomatic strategy would have been successful. One needs to be able to distinguish between correlation and causation, it could be so easy in such a case to wrongly attribute the main cause of the success of the tribe to the diplomatic strategy used.
Fortunately tribal wars is not an exact art, there are many roads to success.
