You think blotting out the name Spaekhugger makes a differnce? Even more so considering that I have already named him?.. I know what I said and who I said it to "S" Arch.
I blotted his name out not because you haven't named him before, but because he didn't want to be dragged into our PnP. I've said this before. Why do you have to keep naming him? To what purpose?
Perhaps your forgetting that what I said before Arch, I was playing up to the person I was talking to.. I told Spaek what he wanted to hear. Not what was actually true. Spaek was in ZT at the time and ZT were still allied with Apoc, I simply wanted to see if my words would travel back to Apoc.
Ah, I was waiting to see which backpedaling argument you would use this time, that's why I posted both contradictory accounts.
So you see the problem we have here? Why would I believe your statement to Jamo when I have a contradictory one you sent to Spaek? Why even mention what you told Jamo about me, since it's obvious you were just telling him what he wanted to hear too, since, you know...that's what you do to people you talk to who aren't in your alliance. You presumed Jamo likes me, I'm guessing, so you said something dare I say almost positive about me because that would be what he wants to hear. Now let me see. You're talking to an ALLY of Apoc (Spaek), and you tell him what he wants to hear by insulting his allies. Err...wait, that doesn't make sense...but that's what you said up there. You then go on to say that you said what you said to him to see if it would get back to us. So which is it? Telling him what he wants to hear (which isn't really what he wants to hear), or telling him something to see if it gets back to us?
And for what reason would you want to see if that specific info would get back to us? As if I don't know any of that already?
But wait. This is also the conversation where you were supposedly saying everything tongue in cheek, remember? So does that mean that you actually do respect us and think that our arguments are valid? haha, your convoluted web of "reasoning" is unreal.
Here's a revolutionary idea: just start saying what you actually mean and don't back down from your comments afterward. I'm sure saying the truth will be a massive struggle, but you can get through it, buddy, I have faith in you.
In the meantime, maybe I should start a thread. We can call it
The Generic Greek Game. In it, I'll post screenshots from that entire conversation and then we can all guess which ones were honest statements, which ones were tongue in cheek, which ones were pure lies, which ones were meant to draw something out of Spaek, which ones were meant to see if they would get to Apoc, which ones were meant to stay secret, etc.! It should be lots of fun for everyone!
Also I see you missed out the part where Spaek agreed with me that you and Cod are hypocrites, Made even more laughable considering he is now in your alliance..
Oh, but previously you said that HE was also speaking tongue-in-cheek, which is what caused you to speak tongue-in-cheek, so I guess he didn't mean it!
You just cant seem to get past the fact that taking cities and attacking strength isnt the way to win a world can you Arch? What differnce does attack value make if you cant take a city.
So there's no correlation between ABP and taking cities? Err...right, that's why the combined Apoc-ZT city take was about 500 to 150 losses the last time I checked back in April.
(Here's the part where I hear they were all inactives...lol, whatever)
In any case, as usual, you've switched the topic yet again. It is a response to KB's statement, "While Apocalypse like to claim that they were a better attacking force than TD," not a statement on winning WW's.
Even if Darkstorm did message you and say that Arch, It doesnt matter. Apoc threw their best at it, And failed. The city in question is still flying a TD flag.. Iam not going to deny you got fairly close. But did you or any other Apoc player didnt manage to get a TD WW city Arch?.. Close doesnt quite cut it, does it? I refer you back to KB 100m line..
Close doesn't count for city takes, but when you are making a statement that your defense was "unbreakable" and people did get through and get revolts started, then your defense, by definition, wasn't really "unbreakable."
Also you are correct when you say that that "so many people used res to rebuild or were focused on the attacks"
LOL, you are such a liar, I'm glad I caught this.
My actual quote:
I believe this also coincided with the failed assault on pwnin's city, so people may have used more resources to rebuild or were focused on the attacks
YOU KNOW, TRYING TO RECLAIM THE WW CITY THAT WE LOST? Not some pointless city/cities.
Also, I didn't say, "so many people," I said, "so people may."
Grab your bicycle and sit on the handles, it be backpedalin' time once mo'!
Defenders should rightfully get more BP. Defenders have a defensive advantage in the respect of a Wall. That gives the defenders a percentage advantage over the attackers. On a one to one basis, One slinger will beat one hop everytime. But give the hop a defensive bonus (A level 25 wall and tower) and the hop wins every time. As a result because of the defensive advantage the wall brings the attacker will always lose more troops attacking than the defender will defending. Hence why knocking down the walls is so important... Would of thought a leader in the number one attacking alliance on herm would have realized that??
And the point of this paragraph is what exactly?
KB was trying to say that defense is more difficult than offense. My point is that the game is biased toward defending which therefore makes attacking more difficult.