Up and Coming Tribes

[DeletedUser]

In my opinion, Leaders tend to suffer in growth, that is if they work as hard as they should be doing internally, especially at this stage. They tend to have less time to sort out their own account, generally a good leader can end up being an average player, it's learning how to manage time correctly.
But it does depend on circumstances and at this stage, it is hard to tell who will stand and who will fall, but after all, isn't that part of the fun?

I believe Virtus is a good tribe, Leader seems to be down to earth with good values.
I also know a couple of their players and know from experience they are definitely one to watch...
But hell, how could I say anything bad after his last post ^.^

I actually believe its the other way around. I think leaders tend to suffer in growth a bit later into the world when the wars start happening as they are focusing so much on making sure the tribe runs smoothly, ops going well, support being moved and all the other added stress and pressure that goes along with major wars.

At the early stage of the game, I feel leaders can often be the top players in their tribes (Nauz, for example) as the leadership isn't as intense. It obviously also depends on area and so on also.

I'll use myself as an example here - whenever I lead I often am one of the top players to start (top at the moment in my tribe on this world too), but that is because the time leadership consumes isnt so intense yet - however it does pick up, and I usually end up being somewhere in the middle of the tribe (two other leaders like this off the top of my head would be Bloodhood and Emperor Taizu).

So although I do agree with you - I just don't agree with the last four words in your first sentence. :icon_wink:

Personally, the two rim tribes that I'm watching a lot are PoR (mainly because I know a few of them well) and Virtus (good forum presence, and know what your members are capable of.)

 

[Nauzhror]

Nope im Jorska from w19&41

Ahh, in that case welcome Was asking because WSS on W41 was hmm, incredibly annoying. I distinctly remember him offering to give me 'tips' on how to be a top player when he was rank 27 with 4 villages, none of which had over a 25 farm.

 

[DeletedUser]

I actually believe its the other way around. I think leaders tend to suffer in growth a bit later into the world when the wars start happening as they are focusing so much on making sure the tribe runs smoothly, ops going well, support being moved and all the other added stress and pressure that goes along with major wars.

At the early stage of the game, I feel leaders can often be the top players in their tribes (Nauz, for example) as the leadership isn't as intense. It obviously also depends on area and so on also.

I'll use myself as an example here - whenever I lead I often am one of the top players to start (top at the moment in my tribe on this world too), but that is because the time leadership consumes isnt so intense yet - however it does pick up, and I usually end up being somewhere in the middle of the tribe (two other leaders like this off the top of my head would be Bloodhood and Emperor Taizu).

So although I do agree with you - I just don't agree with the last four words in your first sentence. :icon_wink:

Personally, the two rim tribes that I'm watching a lot are PoR (mainly because I know a few of them well) and Virtus (good forum presence, and know what your members are capable of.)

I will give it to you know you what you are doing. I agree with just about everything you have said there. Leadership is a very hard job ... takes a lot of time and experience to make it.

 

[DeletedUser]

I actually believe its the other way around. I think leaders tend to suffer in growth a bit later into the world when the wars start happening as they are focusing so much on making sure the tribe runs smoothly, ops going well, support being moved and all the other added stress and pressure that goes along with major wars.

At the early stage of the game, I feel leaders can often be the top players in their tribes (Nauz, for example) as the leadership isn't as intense. It obviously also depends on area and so on also.

I'll use myself as an example here - whenever I lead I often am one of the top players to start (top at the moment in my tribe on this world too), but that is because the time leadership consumes isnt so intense yet - however it does pick up, and I usually end up being somewhere in the middle of the tribe (two other leaders like this off the top of my head would be Bloodhood and Emperor Taizu).

So although I do agree with you - I just don't agree with the last four words in your first sentence. :icon_wink:

Personally, the two rim tribes that I'm watching a lot are PoR (mainly because I know a few of them well) and Virtus (good forum presence, and know what your members are capable of.)

I agree with you almost 100%. Just something to add... most leaders know that point-whoring is not the way to go about playing, but many members do not. Even with mounds of advice from the leader some members still manage to not build enough troops for themselves. This causes leaders to go down in their tribal ranking and the members to go up, even though the leader may have 4 times as many troops. Obviously there are exceptions, but I personally find it somewhat difficult to make sure that everyone in a tribe is troop-whoring.

 

[DeletedUser4298]

Again I agree with what you are saying, but it depends on your tribe, if your pre-made or recruiting most/all of your players. If your willing to take in noobs then you have to be prepared to train them.
Personally I prefer not to take in noobs and train, takes too much time whilst others are defeating 15x15's.

So yeah, I se what your saying.

I don't believe forum presence has a massive part in how good or bad a tribe is, it may make them cooler, but doesn't make them Elite necessarily ^.^
As long as you keep up with politics and read them, I myself don't really start posting until, well, about now :icon_wink:

But Virtus are a decent tribe, Should be see-ing some good stuff there.

Not many tribes are catching my eye like other worlds, at least, not in my area.

 

[DeletedUser]

I agree with you almost 100%. Just something to add... most leaders know that point-whoring is not the way to go about playing, but many members do not. Even with mounds of advice from the leader some members still manage to not build enough troops for themselves. This causes leaders to go down in their tribal ranking and the members to go up, even though the leader may have 4 times as many troops. Obviously there are exceptions, but I personally find it somewhat difficult to make sure that everyone in a tribe is troop-whoring.

I am against both point whoring and troop whoring. I believe both things should be done in unison, you should have sufficient troops and points. There is a topic about this in the .net forums somewhere (I believe W36?) by lardingd where this was discussed.

In regards to pointwhores - that would be a recruitment issue. You should clearly understand who you are inviting, and make sure they are paying attention to you. If they don't follow guides or listen to you now - why keep them? The chances of them listening to you later on in the world, when it is far more important, is very slim.

I have led for a long time, as have many others - and we can also tell you that no, it is not possible to make sure everyone is "troop whoring" unless you sit them on a regular basis, something that is a bit of a nuissance for leaders (from my own experience, it isn't something I particularly enjoy doing), however, you should get on well enough with your members to trust they will be honest with you in regards to these things. You should know them well enough to know they know what they are doing. You should talk to them often enough to know that they will come to you if they have any problems and that they will listen to your advice as they trust you have their best interests at heart.

-Shlomz

 

[Nauzhror]

I am against both point whoring and troop whoring. I believe both things should be done in unison, you should have sufficient troops and points. There is a topic about this in the .net forums somewhere (I believe W36?) by lardingd where this was discussed.

This. The best player is not the one with highest troop ratio. The best player is the one that runs his workshop, barracks, stable, and headquarters 24/7 all at the same time. This leads to much lower troopoint ratio than a player that isn't good enough to run all their queues and settles for only running barracks/stable, but what matters is troops after x number of days, not troops at x number of points.

 

[DeletedUser]

I am against both point whoring and troop whoring. I believe both things should be done in unison, you should have sufficient troops and points. There is a topic about this in the .net forums somewhere (I believe W36?) by lardingd where this was discussed.

Valid point. Personally I find that if you're troop whoring, there's a good chance that you aren't aggressive at all. If you are aggressive and attacking, clearing, and farming a lot of players, there's a good chance that you can loose a good deal of troops in the process. Keeping something like a 5:1 troopoint ratio would be almost impossible (although I've never really tried it personally, so for all I know it's easier than I think).

In regards to pointwhores - that would be a recruitment issue. You should clearly understand who you are inviting, and make sure they are paying attention to you. If they don't follow guides or listen to you now - why keep them? The chances of them listening to you later on in the world, when it is far more important, is very slim.

Well I'd dismiss them personally. I figure if someone doesn't learn after telling them personally that they need to build troops, then they're useless.

 

[DeletedUser]

Again I agree with what you are saying, but it depends on your tribe, if your pre-made or recruiting most/all of your players. If your willing to take in noobs then you have to be prepared to train them.
Personally I prefer not to take in noobs and train, takes too much time whilst others are defeating 15x15's.

So yeah, I se what your saying.

I don't believe forum presence has a massive part in how good or bad a tribe is, it may make them cooler, but doesn't make them Elite necessarily ^.^
As long as you keep up with politics and read them, I myself don't really start posting until, well, about now :icon_wink:

But Virtus are a decent tribe, Should be see-ing some good stuff there.

Not many tribes are catching my eye like other worlds, at least, not in my area.

Since I've led both premades and "noob" tribes, I'll use my own experience here (anecdotal evidence isn't exactly great, I know, but it's better than nothing :icon_razz. I have led a pre-made tribe on W17/24/31/36. I have led "noob" tribes on W12/29/32/37.

I can agree that training noobs takes a lot of time. Even my tribe on this world - it is basically some of the "noobs" I have trained over time. Originally, it took quite a while. However, when you have written your guides, written your speeches on advice and so on, you give them to your members and tell them to read and analyse and understand them, and then they ask you questions - thus lessening the time needed to train them.

I totally agree forum presence doesn't necessarily decide how good a tribe is, but it indicates it. If you have a good, intelligent forum presence - the likelihood is that you have a good, intelligence member base and thus a good, intelligent tribe - and thus have a far better chance at going far. I, personally, despise the term "elite", it is way overused and I would regard very few as such.

Moreover, how the public views you often makes an impact on your diplomacy, recruitment, future wars and things that would affect those wars (who other tribes side with and so on), so although it doesn't necessarily decide how good your tribe is, it is extremely important.

I also am not a real fan of posting that much until noble stages, but I am rather bored waiting for nobles >.<

-Shlomz

 

[Nauzhror]

Valid point. Personally I find that if you're troop whoring, there's a good chance that you aren't aggressive at all.

Not really anything with wrong with not being aggressive to be honest. Nobling aggressively is wise, but clearing for the sake of clearing or "making farms" (stupid term, there's always enough farms without clearing farms, a better term is "wasting troops") isn't in my eyes and in the eyes of several top players I know.

 

[DeletedUser]

Valid point. Personally I find that if you're troop whoring, there's a good chance that you aren't aggressive at all. If you are aggressive and attacking, clearing, and farming a lot of players, there's a good chance that you can loose a good deal of troops in the process. Keeping something like a 5:1 troopoint ratio would be almost impossible (although I've never really tried it personally, so for all I know it's easier than I think).



Well I'd dismiss them personally. I figure if someone doesn't learn after telling them personally that they need to build troops, then they're useless.

Just in regards to OD..this is the policy I've always abided by, and always told my members to abide by:

6) Please remember that you should not aim for OD just for the sake of OD. Troops take time to build and rebuild. Only get OD when necessary. Use your troops wisely.

-Shlomz

Edit: Nauz got there just before me

 

[DeletedUser]

What would be defined as necessary? Defensively, would it be like when you're being attacked with rams/cats? Or offensively, when you know that someone is a potential threat? I'm sure there are more cases than these, but those were the first two that come to my head.

 

[DeletedUser4298]

-Shlomz

We have more than likely met on two or three of those worlds.

I knew you were a familiar face

Good Luck on w2.

I'm going back to reading until something worth posting about appears.

 

[DeletedUser]

What would be defined as necessary? Defensively, would it be like when you're being attacked with rams/cats? Or offensively, when you know that someone is a potential threat? I'm sure there are more cases than these, but those were the first two that come to my head.

Hm. I'll try to explain this as best I can. You can either attack or defend, as you know. At this stage of the game, this is how I would do it:

• If you are being attacked and you are either (a) mainly offense or (b) have a weak defense or (c) are a pointwhore - then you should dodge if it is not rams,catapults or nobles.
• If you are being attacked by catapults and/or rams, then you need to decide. If you are mainly offense, you dodge and wait to see what their attacking strength is, and then decide on whether support is needed or whether you can simply backtime.
• If you are being attacked by nobles, my best advise would be to split the train. If it isn't a train then you need to decide on whether to (a) stand your ground with your wall and hope to kill the noble, or (b) dodge and wait for support.
• If you have a large defense and are mainly defense, then I would advise, still, dodging against attacks that are not containing rams / catapults / nobles.
• If you have a large defense then you need to decide whether you want to dodge rams / catapults to see their offensive strength, or take the risk. If you have been scouted previous and they're attacking you with rams / catapults - chances are they can clear you.

^ That is how you should do things defensively, in my opinion.

In regards to offense, I usually wouldn't clear "potential threats", as they usually are the best noble targets in future. Conserve your troops, is all I can say.

Majick - I've played W10/11/12/15/17/19/20/21/24/26/29/30/31/32/36/37, so chances are you know me from somewhere :icon_razz:

-Shlomz

 

[DeletedUser4298]

Possibly W10, was part of BORG family there.

I've lead tribes on about three or four of those worlds also.

:icon_cool:

 

[DeletedUser]

Possibly W10, was part of BORG family there.

I've lead tribes on about three or four of those worlds also.

:icon_cool:

Your name rings a bell. I'm trying to place it.

(Continue this conversation in game, via PM.)

Sorry for the off-topic guys. :icon_wink:

-Shlomz

 

[DeletedUser]

In regards to offense, I usually wouldn't clear "potential threats", as they usually are the best noble targets in future. Conserve your troops, is all I can say.

So who would you farm? Just clear the people who don't seem to be growing at all, and farm them? Or do you not farm?

EDIT: Thanks for the advice by the way, learned a little.

 

[Nauzhror]

So who would you farm? Just clear the people who don't seem to be growing at all, and farm them? Or do you not farm?

EDIT: Thanks for the advice by the way, learned a little.

You don't need to clear people to have farms. There are always barbs, and inactive players. Farming them is always enough to run all your queues 24/7. I assure you, neither Shlomzi or myself was suggesting that farming is not important, only that "making farms" through clearing active players is not necessary to grow properly.

 

[DeletedUser]

So who would you farm? Just clear the people who don't seem to be growing at all, and farm them? Or do you not farm?

EDIT: Thanks for the advice by the way, learned a little.

Look at my 15x15 on my map. I can tell you now I have 46 farms in my 15x15 alone. 31 of those are players, 17 of those are bonus'/ barbarians.

Print screen:

(Pink are farms.)

However, look at my ODA:

4653 Shlomzi 44

As Nauz said, there are plenty of farms out there without the need for clearing more at this stage. The majority of people are either (a) pointwhores or (b) inactive (on the rim, that is) so there are a lot of easy farms - combined with the amount of barbs / bonus' there are.

Of course I farm, I farm a lot :icon_wink:

 

[DeletedUser]

Not bad, you have a lot of farm ... can lead to a very fast growth :lol: