DeletedUser1942
Guest
2nd when the war started - fell 2 ranks in a month, then disbanded! lol
Nor could ORC beat W1N - so your post is irrelevant
- Status
2nd when the war started - fell 2 ranks in a month, then disbanded! lol
Nor could ORC beat W1N - so your post is irrelevant
DeletedUser
Guest
mplosion happened whilst ranked 4th was my point
DeletedUser6603
Guest
None of it matters now, time to move on.....
DeletedUser
Guest
It wasn't planned.........T4H took time to consider their options, to either stay neutral, back W1N, or back TR, there were some in the tribe who were eager, some over keen, others more tactful but at the end of the day the result was catastrophic, in 2 days i personally had managed to pretty much clear everything around me with LITTLE OR NO INCOMING!!!!, the players who asked for support were denied and told it was their fault were they not? So that to me says when some players request support from T4H that they are 1st breaking the neutrality of T4H by asking them to intervene all be it by support and not O troops, also says that a tribe that had control of 55% of K62 and couldn't support their own players there on 1 section of a "new" front line which was in easy reach for many players, so means that TR was in total chaos and had massively over stretched themselves which leaves them exposed to any kind of strike. I mean seriously.... would you want allies on your border who conducted themselves in such a manor? you couldn't rely on them so they become a liability
Thats just really shocking leadership, really bad, if i was duke of TR at that time i would have stepped down in disgrace and hid my self away in shame for failing the tribe, more importantly failing a member of the council!!!!
T4H took an opportunity, because they saw how badly prepared you were, even in times of peace allies or not I would never divert potential front line troops to another K and certainly not ask members to do so (if thats what really happened).
DeletedUser
Guest
The hilarious part is people talk how great T4H is, yet they have yet to have fair large scale war. In both situations, you completely disregarded any agreements with neighbouring tribes.
We were allies who had honor and respected our agreement. I will agree some players over stretched themselves on the border (Im north and in pure TR lands so was able to empty all of my support), yet, the fact remains. We had an agreement. Sure its just a game and its not a binding contract, but when you succeed honorably everyone respects you. If you do it dishonorably, your victory is tarnished.
We were allies who had honor and respected our agreement. I will agree some players over stretched themselves on the border (Im north and in pure TR lands so was able to empty all of my support), yet, the fact remains. We had an agreement. Sure its just a game and its not a binding contract, but when you succeed honorably everyone respects you. If you do it dishonorably, your victory is tarnished.
DeletedUser
Guest
Imo, T4H made the correct decision in going against TR, and now that TR is defeated, I can only assume a joint W1N + T4H declare on ORC and KnK, which the ex-TR have suposedly gone to before ORC.
Flux seems to be fairing good vs W1N tho.
Flux seems to be fairing good vs W1N tho.
DeletedUser
Guest
I can vouch T4H can war. Its a shame EXP ect dropped before a real fight begun.
Then again, I supose thats what W1N is for :icon_wink:
DeletedUser
Guest
I dont disregard T4H's strategic decisions. I think TR could have easily handled T4H had it been a legitimate war. Respecting the allied agreement is what really P's me off.
I know TR dont really have the proof as we clearly lost, but from the reports I saw from the majority of T4H's attacks, they were hardly experianced. Mixed village attacks, poor timing trains, general lack of organization. They overwhelmed us with shear numbers, not skill. Something that would not have happened had these two tribes faced off head to head instead of the cowardice moves that T4H resorted to.
Still... its over and it was effective. That can not be argued. Move on then.
I know TR dont really have the proof as we clearly lost, but from the reports I saw from the majority of T4H's attacks, they were hardly experianced. Mixed village attacks, poor timing trains, general lack of organization. They overwhelmed us with shear numbers, not skill. Something that would not have happened had these two tribes faced off head to head instead of the cowardice moves that T4H resorted to.
Still... its over and it was effective. That can not be argued. Move on then.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
Could be argued T4H is just a better version of TR?
DeletedUser
Guest
What were you expecting? a polite letter saying we are going to attack you.... these are the vills we are going to attack.... the times..... here are the troop numbers? and just for good will we will also let you know which villages we have stacked also?!
Sheeesh! ever herd of the element of surprise? there was no binding agreement for a "Cool off period" or "grace period prior to any attacks" if you were expecting it then perhaps you should have stipulated that in the alliance agreement.
You refer to 2 wars? If your referring to the FW one then you may want to know we never had an alliance with them! it was a NAP, we refused an alliance, one of the reasons was we didn't see any benefit, now as i said above how poor TR were any benefit of an alliance was lost when TR became a liability!
I joined W1N for 5 days i think it was, in which time I lost a few isolated vills, TR lost a whole lot more from me alone! Surly anyone from T4H would have looked at that and thought..... Hmmmm..... maybe we are just about to have a K taken over while we sit here and watch!
Liability is the word, 1 player shouldn't be able to inflict so much damage and cause so much carnage, if someone did that in my home K I would have made sure the player had been taken out or made to be ineffective within 48 hours but maybe T4H work differently and don't need to discuss things for days before actioning.
T4H are great, they have a extremely good leaders, a very sound council with some very good players who are very aggressive and are not afraid to loose nukes & Support troops, very good at communicating and acting quickly when required.
A Large scale war will come, maybe that will be the end game for everyone in the tribe, and possibly the wrap up of W1 who knows! But god damn we will go down fighting if we are not the victors, many of our players have fought wars on several continents prior to the TR war. I cant think of any large scale war TR were involved in, they were always the superior tribe , TR may have disbanded, but that changes nothing, we are still coming, no matter where the members run and hide. The victory is not tarnished, it was brought about by superior skill and coordination,
DeletedUser
Guest
I never once said we fought a war with a tribe of equal magnitude. Its no wonder you joined W1N for 5 days. Your argument process is the exact same as the majority of them. Completely disregard the point the opposition makes and see only the facts you want...
In leymans terms, "sweet comeback"
In leymans terms, "sweet comeback"
DeletedUser
Guest
In Clamjus terms "lame comeback".
Research by Brian joined W1N and then rejoined T4H. Infact, it is kind of obvious why he was in W1N, then T4H but i'll spell it out for you.
TR declared on W1N, Brian joined W1N 'cause he wanted to fight TR, T4H declared on TR, Brian rejoined T4H due to this and T4H is his home tribe.
:icon_rolleyes:
DeletedUser
Guest
simply respond to the point at issue. All W1N do is swing things there where by attacking (verbally) players through other means. They avoid other posters relevant and truthful points. Everyone knows this...
DeletedUser
Guest
Incorrect, perhaps they do it sometimes, but not all the time. Fact is, W1N beat TR, with T4H.
TR is now gone. Kapesh.
DeletedUser
Guest
Oh you... Carrying on with that sad little sob story... Pity the fool!
TR could not have "easily handled" T4H , as you were a poor tribe with maybe 10 high quality members .
You talk of respect, but the point is, TR didn't respect the fact that T4H had diplomacy with both sides, and at that time wished to remain neutral (As far as im aware :icon_wink
! That's Bs and you know it.
Experience ? It isn't vital. And attacking n00b's like the majority of TR is (Or rather was!) Good practice.
Mixed Vill Attacks ? Hmmm... Funny thing is... Going through the reports in our forum, about 1% have mixed nukes, and even these are just 100 HC in the nuke... Some of the less experienced players have sent some funky looking Nukes (But all offensive troops :icon_wink
, but it's all part of the learning process. And if they learn from it, then so what ?Poor Trains? Well... We were up 500+ conquers on TR before they decided enough was enough, Timings couldn't have been that poor :icon_wink:
And actually... If the timings were so poor, then why were we able to gain so many vills from TR ? And don't spout BS about being outnumbered either, if you are unable to park a truck load of D in between nobles a minute apart, either your setup is terrible, or you really are just a poor player! :icon_razz:
And You Speak of a lack of organisation ?
[30/06/2010 20:13:06] Mike K: hehehe
[30/06/2010 20:13:11] MaelStormer: I cryed lol
[30/06/2010 20:13:26] Mike K: i can imagine!
[30/06/2010 20:14:12] Mike K: was anyone else attacking you at the same time by the way?... or did all the others cop out and not bother...?
[30/06/2010 20:14:26] MaelStormer: Daz sent 3 fakes...
[30/06/2010 20:14:33] Mike K: and thats it?
[30/06/2010 20:14:36] MaelStormer: yup
[30/06/2010 20:14:40] Mike K: oh well, i made the right decision then lol
[30/06/2010 20:14:57] Mike K: there were about 10 of us, supposedly attacking you at that time
[30/06/2010 20:15:08] MaelStormer: well that flopped :/
[30/06/2010 20:15:13] Mike K: lol yeh
[30/06/2010 20:13:11] MaelStormer: I cryed lol
[30/06/2010 20:13:26] Mike K: i can imagine!
[30/06/2010 20:14:12] Mike K: was anyone else attacking you at the same time by the way?... or did all the others cop out and not bother...?
[30/06/2010 20:14:26] MaelStormer: Daz sent 3 fakes...
[30/06/2010 20:14:33] Mike K: and thats it?
[30/06/2010 20:14:36] MaelStormer: yup
[30/06/2010 20:14:40] Mike K: oh well, i made the right decision then lol
[30/06/2010 20:14:57] Mike K: there were about 10 of us, supposedly attacking you at that time
[30/06/2010 20:15:08] MaelStormer: well that flopped :/
[30/06/2010 20:15:13] Mike K: lol yeh
You couldn't pull off a 10 player co-ordinated attack me ... :icon_redface: And i happen to know this isn't the only case of this happening :lol:
I now see why your "leaders" forebode you from posting on these forums :lol:
The Fact of the matter is, T4H didn't outnumber you much, if at all. You seem to have forgotten we are also beating *FW* in the east ?
T4H Skill > TR ... Ehem ... Skill.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
You hit the nail on the head. I was getting bored, contemplating quiting as i was fed up of waring 3 k's away, now i wanted a fight, I got one
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
DeletedUser7701
Guest
After taking some time reading through this thread I am surprised at what has been said.....
The main reason for T4H declaring on TR was the fact that TR did not listen when asked to control their players and to stop barb munching our farms in what was our K in the agreement.....
So if TR. want to blame any one look at their members who did not work to the alliance agreement we had...
The main reason for T4H declaring on TR was the fact that TR did not listen when asked to control their players and to stop barb munching our farms in what was our K in the agreement.....
So if TR. want to blame any one look at their members who did not work to the alliance agreement we had...
DeletedUser
Guest
I'm going to ignore all the largely irrelevant bunfighting in this thread (and the entire forum) and answer atan's question directly.
Yeah, I think TR's biggest mistake was relaxing entry rules, particularly in order to admit entire tribes, complete with deadweight. E.g. the STL war - why on earth did we cut that short? I could have finished that one by myself if necessary; although T4H had started moving in by then, a lot of villages would have automatically fallen into the hands of the more active and aggressive players in the south instead. And perhaps we'd have reduced the amount of random barb nobling that went on with more for us all to work on. Fewer players would have reduced the administrative load, too, so that the leadership could spend more time on enforcing rules, watching for problems, drafting more watertight alliances etc. TR's discipline was its greatest strength when I joined, but I slowly watched it fade as the leadership got further and further devolved to an ever greater number of players. Whilst I agree with T4H that some of TR were taking liberties in nobling barbs in T4H 'home' Ks, jumping straight from alliance to attack seems an curious thing to do - there's intermediate steps for a reason. I wonder how much effort T4H actually made to discuss their concerns with TR's leaders. If you're going to attack your allies, what's the point in allying in the first place?
I do think that TR as a whole neglected the south end of the map, and could have paid more attention to it and to our "allies", but I wonder if T4H declaring could really have been avoided when their star player BrianL was in favour - enough in favour to vote with his feet.
Yeah, I think TR's biggest mistake was relaxing entry rules, particularly in order to admit entire tribes, complete with deadweight. E.g. the STL war - why on earth did we cut that short? I could have finished that one by myself if necessary; although T4H had started moving in by then, a lot of villages would have automatically fallen into the hands of the more active and aggressive players in the south instead. And perhaps we'd have reduced the amount of random barb nobling that went on with more for us all to work on. Fewer players would have reduced the administrative load, too, so that the leadership could spend more time on enforcing rules, watching for problems, drafting more watertight alliances etc. TR's discipline was its greatest strength when I joined, but I slowly watched it fade as the leadership got further and further devolved to an ever greater number of players. Whilst I agree with T4H that some of TR were taking liberties in nobling barbs in T4H 'home' Ks, jumping straight from alliance to attack seems an curious thing to do - there's intermediate steps for a reason. I wonder how much effort T4H actually made to discuss their concerns with TR's leaders. If you're going to attack your allies, what's the point in allying in the first place?
I do think that TR as a whole neglected the south end of the map, and could have paid more attention to it and to our "allies", but I wonder if T4H declaring could really have been avoided when their star player BrianL was in favour - enough in favour to vote with his feet.
- Status
