But i would like to point out one thing Horus You seem to be a pretty experienced player and yes coming out of the core is different than the RIM I too know this, you have to be more aggressive and active at the start.. But when you are the dominant attackers from the core the alliances around you turn into turtles. And its understandable that you coast bc of this. But if you didnt coast I think you guys would have built all 7 wonders without another alliance building one. ( I play in gyth and am in an alliance 100x better than SF and was a core same thing is happening there that happened here except we arnt coasting and u can tell).
The problem with the 'coasting point' depends on what the definition is, what you're essentially arguing is inactivity, but the same could be said of ORCA, especially the former Olympus Returns and Chrome Angels alliances prior to merging. Yes, worlds polarize depending on where the aggressors are coming from and it usually is from the core most of the time in any world, but the problem with the analysis of the other guy I quoted in the previous response is that he argued that fighting turtles is somehow easier than fighting offensive players. The truth is that the opposite is the case, or that in many cases, it shouldn't matter which tactic an alliance employs, there is challenge and difficulty either way.
I agree that there are better alliances elsewhere than here, and turtling is not exactly a bad tactic in my view, despite the fact I have been vocal about some alliances behavior in that respect. I have seen defensive alliances that would put virtually anything here in Psi to shame with a handful of exceptions, and offensive alliances that, with the same world speed, doubled the offensive output of BE, FS, and SF combined. If there is any criticism that should be levied towards SF for its role in this world, it should be from that basis, and I can tell you that there has been a long-standing conflict internally between me and the way some leaders have managed SF, indeed despite the founders interest in wonders, and one other leader having experienced building them in Alpha, had I not put together a plan; albeit a rather rushed and incomplete one due to time running out, SF wouldn't have had a fighting chance at wonders. Then again, had other leaders listened back in January and not in April to start planning, SF would have had all 7 in the bag without much stress, without having to rush to colonize, and without many of the arguments that came about.
The famous military adage of the 7 Ps applies here, and like I said before, as a former active leader in the group, I can vouch that the sizable lethargy, lack of structure, and an inability to act and change the situation immediately by other leaders; instead everything being dragged out and being twice as hard as it should have been, SF would be in better shape and in a much better position, this includes being able to (for the most part) avoid the large loss of core SF players that were the original backbone of the alliance back in January over some recruitment mistakes, and others later on for similar reasons. Had things been different, 4TRESS wouldn't have lasted very long, the tiff with FS and BE would have been solved long ago instead of in recent months, SF would have won the wonders by now with little competition, and the evolution of the world would have been very different.
The other thing I want to hit on is you saying since our existence we have not won a war.... Your right considering we just formed a month and a half ago.... But I bet the alliances of CA or OR or TM did exterminate alliances.... How about this you name the last alliance you did this too FS doesn't count since a lot joined you and you didn't really take many cities to force them to join..... We will see if half our players where even playing when you did this....
Well I only meant in the coalition sense, since that was the criterion by which some here proclaimed an alliance having to fight to be great, but ORCA itself is a coalition fighting another coalition (SF + allies), so not only does it not fit the very rhetoric it is using, but it is even losing despite more or less having a 'fairer' playing field. Prior to the merge, CA and OR together were fighting Wargasm for a sustained period and were not really winning by any stretch of the imagination. OR was stagnating and collapsing quite visibly, and CA was keeping them alive in a similar sense to the more active branches of 4TRESS keeping some of its dying branches alive when fighting SF.
In regards to naming an alliance, FS did lose a lot of cities to SF, but also to 4TRESS during the same period. At this same point, BE, with the exception of O56 where it was to-and-fro, was losing cities to SF, without any major alliance intervening on SF behalf to help. BE and FS were on good terms at this time as well, and BE was comprised of more experienced players generally speaking than FS, with some exceptions. Technically neither were crushed, but the rate at which that war was going, neither FS or BE would have existed in a few months time if not for a change in diplomacy aimed at attacking 4TRESS later and trying to take them out. FS and BE lost many players during and after the war with SF, including plenty of cites. Some even left under the 'RL' guise ignoring that they were under constant assault by SF players.
As For my pnp it was supposed to be funny not thoroughly examined in my opinion the majority of you guys have coasted the past 6 months... Thats my opinion and i think the stats would show it if they went that far back now you did have a resurgence about a month ago so thats why it doesn't go 7 months back.
Apart from two quotes from your PnP, I already said I acknowledged that it was in jest, I was pointing out some inconsistencies, one of which is that if the majority of SF was coasting, then so were the overwhelming majority of the server since SF, despite setbacks, internal nonsense, several months of spying from certain players, etc... were among the most active in Psi. At the end of the day, there isn't an alliance that has faced as many wars with as many hampers and losses that SF has had, and still come out as the most competitive on the fighting and wonder fronts. In short, there is no comparison, despite the barking of some here. Even FS and BE players who have been in some of the longest conflicts with SF would admit they have some excellent and active group of players.
As is standard, I was enjoying the reading of your post until I saw the above comment. That is a rather broad comment and I believe if you give it more thought, you'll rephrase it.
Thanks Farg, and appreciate that you pointed this out. Instead of editing the previous response, I think I will retract the bragging point for ORCA, seems to me some might fit the description, but there are some good players past and present particularly from the CA bunch. cisfe would certainly be one of them.
As for the comment about SF being the more accomplished here, it is a technical truth, but as you can read above, I have rephrased that with more detail. That isn't to say that some issues I had with leadership, direction, and management didn't cause me to stop playing Psi, which I should reiterate. SF is far from calling itself one of the best in all of grepolis, maybe in Psi, but not overall. If leadership had its wits about it earlier and was more active instead of playing pass the parcel with duties and delaying crucial decisions, and avoided making bad decisions; SF would more than qualify.