Well this is pathetic...

DeletedUser10619

Guest
Well, like i said, I am not playing so I only have an overview, but 2 barbs out of 4 caps? Perhaps you forced the player to quit, i dont know, but if so, could the nobles have not been employed better elsewhere.

Or are you finding targets a little hard to come by with the "recruitment drive"?
 

DeletedUser13954

Guest
Well, like i said, I am not playing so I only have an overview, but 2 barbs out of 4 caps? Perhaps you forced the player to quit, i dont know, but if so, could the nobles have not been employed better elsewhere.

Or are you finding targets a little hard to come by with the "recruitment drive"?
Noble a player?!? that just isnt fair he/she worked on that villa to build it
 

DeletedUser12641

Guest
leave my tribe mate alone bullies hahahaha
unfortunately church worlds you have to be abit more clever,
do not judge ones takes when your not in the same situation

anyway questions for all you family haters myself included
whats the difference between having 2 allies and a few naps
to having just an extra couple of tribes you call your family

for me a family you can trust more than your allies or naps so surely a better way to go rather than getting stabbed in
the back down the line
but
downside if you can call it downside is less food later on in the world as when people leave you replace them with a player from your family keeping you strong
is this actually a downside?
just curious because I hate families but its a smart move if done right
 

DeletedUser

Guest
You keep saying you hate families but keep defending the idea of it...I'm the one meant to cause chaos with people's minds, not you!
 

DeletedUser12641

Guest
hahahahaha sorry I think its because im confused too, because we all say we hate them but then when in a war you recruit players from tribes to keep your tribe strong
so im trying to understand why people are so strongly against it because iam also, but then the more I try and convince myself its wrong the more I think but why whats the real difference having allies or naps or having a couple of family tribes
see where im getting at I am confused
 

DeletedUser13954

Guest
I think but why whats the real difference having allies or naps or having a couple of family tribes
see where im getting at I am confused
because an ally can be an ally of multiple parties and equally fight with or against you and the drop of a hat they are out for their own win as a single tribe not the collective of both tribes, or all 4 in this worlds case
 

DeletedUser14043

Guest
Honestly, stop with this nonsense of comparing family and ally....
We all know there is but one reason for any and all moves made and that is to best position a group of players to win a world.
Family's have a bad name because some stiff along the way had his/her feelings (maybe pride) hurt because he/she was ganked by them (as in the family).

If those doing most of the complaining are so much better then those doing most of the defending, let those complaining and degrading the family go solo..

Truth is, there's very little difference between "family" and "diplomacy" as the end result remains the same. (An agreement to avoid each other and help when needed.) Additionally, with the addition of internal thread sharing one can argue that every "ally" is family under a different name.

So... if you want to attempt to degrade the "family" gaming theory then please... look into the mirror, consider the end game, open your forum and the shared threads and do so equally. Because diplomacy is and works exactly the same as "family" with the only difference, one is hidden while the other isn't.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser10619

Guest
So... if you want to attempt to degrade the "family" gaming theory then please... look into the mirror, consider the end game, open your forum and the shared threads and do so equally. Because diplomacy is and works exactly the same as "family" with the only difference, one is hidden while the other isn't.

And that is the point.

Family tribe = Noob
Tribe with lots of allys = Noob

This is a war game, people should be playing it to have fun and attack the enemy, not cosy up next to everyone you can do.

In my opinion, and tribe with more than one ally/nap, is weak, nervous or lacking confidence in their ability to progress through the world.

I would therefore agree that there is little difference between a family and a tribe with lots of allys, but both are a really boring way to move things along, and will lead to barb nobling as players have no where to go.

Alternative, grow a pair, and try the warring side of the game. Never know, you might even like it
 

DeletedUser12641

Guest
sb007ck
love your post mate sometimes you need other opinion to see all angles
and your infact spot on and I think the only reason people do it is to win
my head is clear now the way forward for future worlds no more family tribe making
im definatley up for this :]
 

DeletedUser13811

Guest
I agree Sb007ck

Any tribe willing to fight a whole world on their own deserves more respect whether they win or lose than these family tribe abominations.

It's like getting to a football match and asking the other side if they'd rather join your team and kick the ball into the same goal. Obviously you're going to win, but how is it a win if everyone wins? You can't have pride in that kind of play.
 

DeletedUser13954

Guest
that has to be one of my favourite analogies ever.

So when do afa and shh return to being 7 different tribes:p
 

DeletedUser14043

Guest
@ sb007ck

I and most like the thought of "no family" but to say family = noob and lots of allys = noob is "in fact" a very noob quote.

I've gamed this game longer then most (since W4 on .net) and have seen only 2 truely elite tribes.. (Gkan and Axes)
Both times, those tribes were in 30 member worlds and each of the original members were the games top farming and fighting players.
Both times, those tribes made "end game" diplomacy "early"
Both times, those tribes limited their diplomacy but were smart enough to make diplomacy with their biggest threat.. actually, with their 3 largest threats.

Winning is more then fighting.
Winning is diplomacy, winning is intelligent play, winning is staying focused and most importantly, winning is recruiting smartly. In the end, every winning tribe recruits. Every winning tribe eventually eats the idle player to make room for the better player of a tribe they recently warred.

So... before spouting off the elite tribes don't do mass diplomacy.. consider the whole and as a minimum, please be part of an "end game" tribe.
 

DeletedUser13811

Guest
Can you really claim that AFA and Shhh have recruited 'smartly'?
 

Reastablished

Active Member
Reaction score
36
I've gamed this game longer then most (since W4 on .net) and have seen only 2 truely elite tribes.. (Gkan and Axes)


Winning is more then fighting.
Winning is diplomacy, winning is intelligent play, winning is staying focused and most importantly, winning is recruiting smartly. In the end, every winning tribe recruits. Every winning tribe eventually eats the idle player to make room for the better player of a tribe they recently warred.

Personally, I hate it when people talk about playing since this world or got this many points on this world, as a friend used to say your only as good as the world you are on.

I do however partly agree with you that diplomacy, can be good diplomacy and can be utilised along with recruitment yet I would argue that it has happened before where tribes with no diplomacy have beaten tribes twice their size through skill, this is unlikely to happen all the time but I think the point is a tribe who have the balls to say no to diplomacy and no to mass recruitment and take on the rest of the world earn the respect of more players than tribes such as A.F.A and Shhh(although they were kind of forced into it to stand a chance).
 

DeletedUser14043

Guest
Personally, .............. but I think the point is a tribe who have the balls to say no to diplomacy and no to mass recruitment and take on the rest of the world earn the respect of more players than tribes such as A.F.A and Shhh (although they were kind of forced into it to stand a chance).

Who forced them into it? If you disrespect AFA for reasons given, then you also must disrespect Shhh for the same reasons. Still, my point is valid. Diplomacy is part of the game. Family diplomacy is visible to all where as solo tribe diplomacy is hidden and lastly, for the "elite snobs"... you say it is a war game that respectable tribes fight solo. Tell that to the ally nations of WW1 and WW2.

(That my friends is the real truth and futhermore, the elite "tribe/nation" in both those wars was Germany, whom here will say they "respect" hitler or the Germans in WW1?)

Say what you want about being elite... about who should be respected... and more so, about what is respected gaming in a warring game but remember always what these games are actually based upon. There is no elite in war, only victory or defeat. The elite are the victors regardless of the way they achieved the victory.

Edit:
I'm not defending either gaming style...
As I mentioned in an earlier post. I did what I've never before done when I abandoned UN... as a result, win or lose this world, regardless of the outcome, i lost when I wasn't loyal to those I consider friends and though I will remain loyal to Spurs and company now, I will always know I failed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser13811

Guest
That's all well and good....but this is a game not real life war. If the life of my family was in danger I'd join any family tribe and have alliances with everyone possible. However within a game I don't see the need for survival at all costs. Dignity is worth more.

I'm not sure how playing in tribes like AFA and Shhh can even be considered fun. Each tribe needs 3/4 of their players to quit through boredom. So ultimately the end goal is to bore your own players enough that they leave so you can internal them.
 

DeletedUser14043

Guest
lol... just stop UV. Your posts show a prejudice that is laughable.

Everyone has their own gaming style and no "1 gaming style" is better then the other.
Also, "every" tribe remaining from "midgame" on has "bored" players. Your statement, like most you post, is so misleading. You want to show the reader that "family" tribes are lesser gaming styles and create boredom and present the "elite" tribes as less boring and more warring by nature when in fact, these elite tribes have to address the exact same issues as do the family tribes. Often, the elite tribes have to address even more internal issues. Diplomacy is always an issue because one selfish player thinks the diplomacy is hindering his/her gaming or one tribe member eats inside the other's growth area and so on.... As always, your posts make me smile because they are filled with so many negatives. Let gamers' game as they so chose. War them if need be and move on but don't belittle them for choosing a gaming style that differs from yours.

This prejudice you have is not becoming of a forum mod. Family tribes have been a part of the game since the games inception.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top