Goodgame Studios forum archives
Forum: empire-en
Board: [817] War Updates
Topic: [352080] most war prone server
[4971794] Friedrich IV (US1) [None] :: June 28, 2018, 11:11 p.m.
Batten (GB1) said:
Tend to agree with Fuji.  It's still unclear who is the top alliance on US1 until that's resolved the top US alliances will be regarded as not having been able to knock out their strongest opponent and claim total dominance as their equivalents on other servers have done.  In International contests currently player for player they perform less well.  A lot of the other alliances on other servers also don't benefit from a family of alliances or the level of sub alliances on the US Server.  And reading the last war thread KON indicated their main alliance would take out the alliance they were warring with on their own and then appeared to have had to climb down and bring in one of their subs to help them out which is fair enough but doesn't shout strength.  They also revealed they had black dot inactive players which isn't the case in some of the other top international alliances so those players hold them back and would give cause for concern in a head to head.  You could offset that against a weaker alliance but not against an alliance like Royal Kings or D Generation with more developed and longer term players with equivalent or greater spending power.  That's why I'm not sure Kon makes top ten whilst I think Misc who are more coherent in their main probably do make top five.  
Events do not equal ability to defeat your enemies in war
[4971808] king clone (US1) [US1] :: June 28, 2018, 11:41 p.m.
to think US1 server war was 3.2 years long
[4971907] Batten (GB1) [GB1] :: June 29, 2018, 8:48 a.m.
Exactly my point 3.2 years of failing to win.  That isn't to denigrate the struggle which clearly was epic.  But the aim is to win or achieve preset war aims both failed in that from what they have said though had fun in failing.  The equivalent alliances internationally have just been more clinical more quickly.  My point is that chapter isn't closed until it is it remains unresolved.  The point of a war is to win it.  Neither side could achieve that.  On other servers their equivalents have achieved that without needing the same number of support alliances and in some cases they have none.  So you have to be realistic in an international comparison other alliances found strategies, tactics or a system that worked more quickly. The US system of subs that they built ironically looks from an outside perspective to prevent resolution rather than facilitating it.  Basically you have to wade through x number of subs to get to the main and even if you nail the main they just resupply new players from the subs.  You probably - arguably - have stronger players spread across the families rather than concentrated in the main compared to other servers which dilutes overall strength.  That presumably would be why they now seemed so intent on dismantling their system of alliances or allies currently.  What is remarkable is that they told everyone what they were going to do and now the rest of US Server is sitting there and patiently waiting for it to happen.  I'd guess it's displacement and a need for reinforcement.  But a fail is a fail however you choose to dress it up until you turn it into a success.  It's really a question of when rather than if an answer to the outstanding question is reached.  At least that is how it seems to me.    
[4972266] Friedrich IV (US1) [None] :: June 30, 2018, 5:10 a.m.
Batten (GB1) said:
Exactly my point 3.2 years of failing to win.  That isn't to denigrate the struggle which clearly was epic.  But the aim is to win or achieve preset war aims both failed in that from what they have said though had fun in failing.  The equivalent alliances internationally have just been more clinical more quickly.  My point is that chapter isn't closed until it is it remains unresolved.  The point of a war is to win it.  Neither side could achieve that.  On other servers their equivalents have achieved that without needing the same number of support alliances and in some cases they have none.  So you have to be realistic in an international comparison other alliances found strategies, tactics or a system that worked more quickly. The US system of subs that they built ironically looks from an outside perspective to prevent resolution rather than facilitating it.  Basically you have to wade through x number of subs to get to the main and even if you nail the main they just resupply new players from the subs.  You probably - arguably - have stronger players spread across the families rather than concentrated in the main compared to other servers which dilutes overall strength.  That presumably would be why they now seemed so intent on dismantling their system of alliances or allies currently.  What is remarkable is that they told everyone what they were going to do and now the rest of US Server is sitting there and patiently waiting for it to happen.  I'd guess it's displacement and a need for reinforcement.  But a fail is a fail however you choose to dress it up until you turn it into a success.  It's really a question of when rather than if an answer to the outstanding question is reached.  At least that is how it seems to me.    
US1 is very cyclical, war breaks out between big families, big families get torn to shreds, new top alliances rise up taking in all those who left the big war, new top alliances gain subs, more big wars break out

I think there's a difference between not winning and calling off a 3 year war of mutual destruction, though. While technically the same thing, I don't think they are equal in this comparison.

Also worthy of note, just because somebody wins faster than somebody else, doesn't mean they're better at war. Just means their opponent has less resolve.

As for your previous comments about not dominating all opponents, nobody on US1 will ever accomplish this because Americans are salty people and we'll never join an alliance we don't like. When war breaks out, all the eventer scrubs run pretty quick and go hide in alliances that aren't at war to build their pretty castles. One would have to war every alliance that any player goes to and chase them all out of the game to achieve complete dominance. There's very little loyalty in most alliances in US1, everybody likes to run at the first sign of trouble. That's why most wars only last 3 days, people are scared of it affecting their eventing long-term and losing members to alliances that are still performing and getting rewards normally.

That's why I warred often when I was a leader - routinely purging the disloyal and weak created a stronger alliance than many alliances higher in rank. You don't rise nearly as fast, but you build a solid crew.
[4987018] Fearless_Hussar (INT2) [INT2] :: Aug. 14, 2018, 10:15 p.m.
Herveus (AU1) said:
INT2
The INT 2 has many wars? That's quite the ironic statement. 
We have a war once in a thousand years and that is coming from a person from one of the sub alliances of old Nexus now called the Avengers. Yeah I know PK is dead now mostly but I don't have time to actively play so I am good here. Still when PK was the official training for Nexus people were talking about war with Blaatand or Asylum and nothing ever happened. Not that I think that is necessarily bad because I like to be relaxed about my account, not having to worry about pvp and logging daily if I have work to do. INT 2 alliances attitude is best described as maintaining the status quo from what I can tell. The alliance leaders are sound diplomats so war rarely breaks out and strict server rules are ALWAYS appied. If we get a war then it is either between the top 1-10 alliances, which are btw unimaginably strong, or between small alliances. But usually the change of power in INT 2 happens mostly through merge between alliances or vassalization, breaking or making of unions and so on. That is because when an alliance in INT 2 becomes first it mostly secures the majority of the available command points as fast as possible. Furthermore the 2nd and sometimes even the 3rd alliance in rankings is usually a vassal or a training alliance of the first one. But NO 1 alliance gets most command points which is now the Avengers that have about 20k now and their training alliance, the Expendables, are 2nd with 4k command points. We don't get much info lately down in PK though because it is a dead alliance mostly so I might be missing some things but we were for years with little to no wars. There has been some talk about a war with a German alliance lately though but it hasn't started from what I understand. 

Long story short: INT 2 rarely has any major wars. But be careful our major wars are a huge mess, when they happen, because many alliances take part as subs of the major ones. Also the server rules that I mentioned are clearly written and there is a webpage where they post and change them once in a while. The server rules of INT 2 limit pvp but are mostly reasonable so most people respect them.