World War I

[DeletedUser2779]

yes dubby -

an internal is a player within the tribe -- thats the definition

not a player that has left or been kicked --

an internal implies - account sat or arranged account take over -- you should know as you inhabit ex TR .

An external player -- as in the case of several ex T4H players is exactly that - an external player that is fighting against any village take overs.

This is exactly the same as any other external, hostile take over -- they fight back and in some cases like mael - they have the skill to make a battle of it

Im not sure how more simple i can make that for you

Therefore you analysis of the stats appears MASSIVELY INCORRECT

 

[DeletedUser4320]

Jackattack, my response was to Thunderhorse who claimed that using total conquers was a far better way to present the data.

As shown, last week T4H had almost 50% of their conquers from villages of the T4H family or players recently associated with the T4H family.

So the point remains untouched, or do you claim that two players from the same tribe swapping 500 villages, showing as 1000 total conquers, is better than a tribe gaining 900 villages from the enemy within the same time frame?

It is important to distinguish between snot and mustache as the saying goes.

 

[DeletedUser2779]

recently associated and internal is very different.

external and internal is very different -- if you cant be bothered to sort out your research and represent things in a correct manner

please dont bother -- you are tiresome -- and your obvious love of hearing your own voice has become beyond a joke -

TBH i have no idea why you remain here if not just to wind others up - if thats what you are happy to do - then congrats and good luck

 

[DeletedUser4320]

Jack, I am terribly sorry that you find me tiresome, but facts are facts as the saying goes and the facts shows, just as I claimed, that during the last week almost 50% of T4H conquers were internals or players recently encompassed within the empire of the T4H family.

This fact demonstrates the inadequate measurement of tribal growth inherited within the method of using total amount of conquers and thus falsifies Thunderhorse's claim that it is the better way to present the data.

 

[DeletedUser]

Villages taken now being used against enemies where they previously were not being - seems like a positive to me if not growth per se I would still class it as a positive rather than a negitive thing (I really couldn't give a rats for your strawman argument yaddle to be honest). If you had looked I only used the term 'better' not perfect - Truth be told neither way is pefect. There will always be parts left out on any presentation of stats. You can twist stats all day to get results you want really, as one of my favourite quotes goes

'Lies, damned lies, and statistics'

We know in comparsion to W1N we do not have the same number of conqs against the enemies listed (we never did claim that) and that compared to our previous conq records it has slowed down - however the main reason for this has been given due to the diversion of attention to deal with the internals quickly so we can return to the run of play quicker.

Its already been said multple times that we in W1N and T4H will look forward to the end of days of UK1 (if were both still around - never know what will happen!), until then we'll honour that life long alliance we set in place many many months ago.

You got our answer(s) so please stop flogging a dead horse. Frankly this topic is about the World War of Side 1 vs. side 2 not that of an Anti-W1N crusade and questioning of the tactics employed by those allied to one of the tribes in X side . If you wish to this please start another thread and enjoy yourself there.

 

[DeletedUser4320]

Villages taken now being used against enemies where they previously were not being - seems like a positive to me if not growth per se I would still class it as a positive rather than a negitive thing

No one has classed it as a negative thing, thus you are arguing a straw man argument as the saying goes.

We know in comparsion to W1N we do not have the same number of conqs against the enemies listed (we never did claim that) and that compared to our previous conq records it has slowed down

Thank you, this was my initial point before the T4H brigade came in to divert the thread from it's course as the saying goes. If you want to further discuss the inner workings for adequate measures of war statistics, please do so in an appropriate thread and I'll be happy to abide as the saying goes.

For now we'll just conclude that all facts are showing that W1N's puppets are severely lagging in the growth department and consequently making W1N's dominance stronger.

 

[DeletedUser]

Sigh that would be off topic in comparison to the thread title Dubby. If you wish to make any other such comments start another thread and post your points there not here.

As it says this is about Side 1 vs. Side 2. In this case it has been shown in that context that Side 1 is winning against Side 2. Arguing any other point is totally irrelevant to the main purpose of this thread.

 

[DeletedUser4320]

Discussing the distribution of conquers within the two sides is on topic all the time the topic is 'World War I' as the saying goes.

 

[DeletedUser]

Discussing the distribution of conquers within the two sides is on topic all the time the topic is 'World War I' as the saying goes.

You only argue this point because it suits your Anti-W1N point of view to try and further show reasons why everyone must gang-bang W1N - thats your view point but there is no reason to spam it across every single thread that has mention of W1N or T4H in it - it has become rather tedious to read.

Understand this - as players from W1N and T4H have posted multiple times - our alliance will be upheld until the end game as we have agreed - where we will enjoy the 1v1 we will have there. Touting any other argument as to reasons why we should not be sided with W1N will fall on deaf ears as we frankly do not care.

 

[DeletedUser4320]

I am terribly sorry that the facts show that the number one tribe is out growing its allies and as such securing said tribe with alliances is a strategy with inevitable failure at the end of the tunnel as the saying goes.

But facts are facts and if you don't want to discuss said facts, then don't discuss them.

Simple as.

 

[DeletedUser]

I am terribly sorry that the facts show that the number one tribe is out growing its allies and as such securing said tribe with alliances is a strategy with inevitable failure at the end of the tunnel as the saying goes.

But facts are facts and if you don't want to discuss said facts, then don't discuss them.

Simple as.

Dubby, LRAG gained over 18mil via a merge. It wasn't shown on the stats but it's there.

You TRY to discourage all W1N's allies. WE GET THE POINT! We recognise we will have to fight W1N. We've done it before. YOU are hurt because W1N made your account worthless. And before you start "Oh I conquered more from them than they did me", who really won? W1N did. You sucked the enjoyment out of your own account and I'd rather go out in a decent manner than ruin the game for myself. Isn't that why you are bitter?

Now, we've choosen to be allies of W1N. We've accessed all risks. SO GET OVER IT!

 

[DeletedUser6164]

LRAG and W1N will one day fight and we will have a bloody good time doing it, we all know this every member of both tribes knows this. The thing is Dubby we will do it when we are ready and you are gone. I think we are managing to get on well and for sure LRAG have made great strides that would not have happened if we had fought to the death earlier as you seem to have wanted. LRAG members will I hope see W1N as a decent ally and good fun in the future (we are both looking forward to fighting each other) it just so happens its going to be on our terms and not just because you want us to.

 

[DeletedUser6748]

Just out of curiosity, both LRAG & T4H have end games with W1N, and both have mentioned it being the final battle 1 vs 1. (i cant be bothered to find the quotes) So who has the final end game? or is it going to be 2 vs 1 were by W1N is sandwiched in the middle?

And before everyone starts saying i'm just adding to the anti-w1n, i'm not as i know there is nothing I can say, just an honest question. Sorry if this has been answered before.

 

[DeletedUser1942]

And before you start "Oh I conquered more from them than they did me", who really won? W1N did. You sucked the enjoyment out of your own account and I'd rather go out in a decent manner than ruin the game for myself. Isn't that why you are bitter?

You've hit the nail on the head, as a genuine saying goes

or is it going to be 2 vs 1 were by W1N is sandwiched in the middle?

It really doesnt matter, all 3 tribes should be there in the end, the coalition will not - there is plenty of time, and many villages to get through first, the final war will be a good one, no matter how it turns out.



Also, LRAG hitting ORC is what the older members in LRAG (fattaff, midgey, deanzy, kutusov,etc) could call "payback time"........now its ORC getting jumped on!

 

[DeletedUser4320]

YOU are hurt because W1N made your account worthless. And before you start "Oh I conquered more from them than they did me", who really won? W1N did. You sucked the enjoyment out of your own account and I'd rather go out in a decent manner than ruin the game for myself. Isn't that why you are bitter?

Why would I be bitter towards W1N when they are the very reason that made all my extraordinary feats possible? Without W1N I would never have had the opportunity to conquer more from them than vice versa despite sharing borders for over half a year! Without W1N I would not have had the opportunity to pull of a flawless scorched earth spitting defiance with my very last breath as the saying goes. Without W1N I would not have had the chance to go 1 vs 1 against the player of their choice and defeat him in an epic deathmatch. So I have everything to thank W1N for, and consequently your argument that I am arguing my points due to being hurt and bitter is objectively false.

But me and my doings is not the topic here, the topic discussed was the strategically suicide it is to ally W1N when all it causes is W1N to exponentially out grow their allies. But I can understand that you don't want to argue that point, but rather want to argue the straw man argument of the objectives behind my arguments instead of the arguments themselves as the saying goes.

 

[DeletedUser]

Why would I be bitter towards W1N when they are the very reason that made all my extraordinary feats possible? Without W1N I would never have had the opportunity to conquer more from them than vice versa despite sharing borders for over half a year! Without W1N I would not have had the opportunity to pull of a flawless scorched earth spitting defiance with my very last breath as the saying goes. Without W1N I would not have had the chance to go 1 vs 1 against the player of their choice and defeat him in an epic deathmatch. So I have everything to thank W1N for, and consequently your argument that I am arguing my points due to being hurt and bitter is objectively false.

No Dubby, you seem to be quite a sad person. Yes, you did conquer more W1N villages than they did you. But you were WORTHLESS, barbs were bigger than your villages!

An epic deathmatch? Pfft, you'd have had bigger battles than some of the ORC players with 200 swords in thier villages than Adellion, of offence Ad of course.

You have deluded yourself through hate.

But me and my doings is not the topic here, the topic discussed was the strategically suicide it is to ally W1N when all it causes is W1N to exponentially out grow their allies. But I can understand that you don't want to argue that point, but rather want to argue the straw man argument of the objectives behind my arguments instead of the arguments themselves as the saying goes.

No rather Dubby. It's about the current World War, your blind hate for those who destroyed you has changed this topic already. Even W1N's current and former enemies have a thing called "respect", you might want to learn of it.

It'll take W1N another while Dubby to gain 18mil while LRAG continue to grow on top of it.

 

[DeletedUser4320]

Yes, you did conquer more W1N villages than they did you. But you were WORTHLESS, barbs were bigger than your villages!

My villages were 21 points after I had employed the tactic of scorched earth, yes. Destroying anything that can be useful to the enemy is the very idea behind the scorched earth tactic.

An epic deathmatch? Pfft, you'd have had bigger battles than some of the ORC players with 200 swords in thier villages than Adellion, of offence Ad of course.

It was not me who chose Adellion to represent W1N, that was it W1N themselves who did. So any objections you have towards their choice of weapon you will have to direct to W1N as the saying goes.

No rather Dubby. It's about the current World War, your blind hate for those who destroyed you has changed this topic already.

I've made my contribution to the world war pointing out the interesting growth distribution within the W1N fraction, that others then want to discuss me and my doings based on that is not something I can control. As for me hating W1N, I have already pointed out the logical flaw in such a statement given the fact that W1N is the very reason I was able to perform feats which where creme of the crop as the saying goes.

Even W1N's current and former enemies have a thing called "respect", you might want to learn of it.

Are you thinking of slating other posters as sad persons based on what they write on an online war game forum? Glasshouses and stones as the saying goes.

:lol:

 

[DeletedUser6158]

It was not me who chose Adellion to represent W1N, that was it W1N themselves who did. So any objections you have towards their choice of weapon you will have to direct to W1N as the saying goes.

Must have missed that bit. Surely Adellion was only representing himself as the saying goes

or do you have any specific to show us that he was specifically chosen.

 

[DeletedUser589]

Originally Posted by MetallicPhantom
An epic deathmatch? Pfft, you'd have had bigger battles than some of the ORC players with 200 swords in thier villages than Adellion, of offence Ad of course.

It was not me who chose Adellion to represent W1N, that was it W1N themselves who did. So any objections you have towards their choice of weapon you will have to direct to W1N as the saying goes.

Dubby are you actually stupid or something?
How does W1N have anything to do with your pathetic 1vs1 on W5 between two players with egos?? He wasn't representing W1N in anyway what so ever, so get over your self. I hadnt even heard about it before you started mouthing off as always!

Stop being so sore over losing in W1, you lost your first world you played in which isnt surprising considering you are less than average, perhaps in bottom 5% of players in TW.

Now stop derailing yet another thread! And congrats has to go to the mods for yet again letting you derail yet another topic whilst infracting members for minor issues that actually contribute positive comments to the forums!

Its ridiculous these days, everyone says it but nothing is changing, just players getting infracted for speaking out against the poor performance by the mods!!!

 

[DeletedUser4320]

Adellion said that W1N requested him in this post.

W1N's fury enraged them so, they requested (and I consented) to a 1on1 battle with Dubby