P&P - TFP vs DoA

[DeletedUser9300]

dogukan,
Yes, IoA is part of DoA. Yes, your conquests on them were legitimate. However, all DoA is saying is that those conquests took less skill (force? manpower? ability?) and aren't as good "trophy" conquests as, say, our conquests of your O76 Ocean Leaders cities.
I'm sure that all of DoA will give and is giving the respect to most of TFP.
However, posts like tegi's sarcastic attempts to drive this thread off course aren't really conducive to respect. His point was to say that our conquests were of inactives, but was his delivery method really necessary?
You'll see that GROM's previous post were all of a respectful, serious tone.

It's simple. Stay on topic, discuss the war, and don't bring up "Turkey Gobbler" comments.

 

[DeletedUser]

I couldnt say it better Omega, thank you.

Tegi joined the club of TFP top players/leaders who instead of discussing war issues try to hit me personally. Even though it wasnt as blunt as other comments I saw about myself before still remains the fact that he prefers personal insults over discussion about what was said by me. That only shows again that TFP players cant understand what means "no personal insults" or cant argue with my posts and try to contaminate this thread with their troll comments.

I do verbally attack TFP as an alliance but I dont do any personal trips unless Im provoked and writting a repost (the only exception was Tibs, I will admit that). This is PnP thread in which I will be presenting facts in the sole purpose of damaging my opponents. Till now it wasnt that hard - all I had to do was to stick to facts. The hardest part was trying to not get to much provoked by never ending stream of insults coming from their side. Have you noticed that each of my posts talking about their weakness and incapability to fight as equal was always followed by personal attacks on me? That should say something to all of you.

@dogukan
Regarding IoA, Omega explains exactly what the deal is with these conquers. IoA players were located in the center of your oceans, isolated from others. DoA took cities from much bigger players, not from training alliance, not in our ocean but yours and they were pretty close to friendlies. The importance and difficulty of our "victories"/conquests were much bigger than TFPs.

Lastly saying that "a LOT of the people who got conquered were inactive" is in my opinion absolutely not true. It is very general comment. I did enlist players we conquered and all of them were active (they were dodging, defending, attacking, conquering, sending hate mails). If you want I can repeat who was conquered in the area where I operate -
Carden (started with 188k points)
St Frank (started with 140k points),
Bushell (84k),
rockwizard (72k - now VM),
niteridr (72k),
PhoenixFire
- we took 4-6 cities from each of them (except last one). Please give me an example of player we conquered that you think was inactive, I will look for battle reports or PMs from them to prove my point.

For comparison all of your conquers in this ocean were cities taken from guys like bigdaven228 (IoA player with 56k points) or moomekzie (3k, 1 city guy). I will repeat, you took these cities in your ocean, while we took most of our targets in yours. Do you see where my lack of respect to TFP comes from?

Post Edited

 

[DeletedUser5270]

People will have either noticed or will notice soon so I may as well reveal all to the world.

TFP's training alliance Phoenix Legionnaires is being merged into TFP. I have issued all invites and already approx 40 people have moved across.

Whilst this isn't directly related to the war, it is a decision partly influenced by the war and it is a decision that affects the war.

The main reason is that we have lost a few players recently due to people just leaving the game. It is hard to replace them with the equivalent level of players as we are almost completely surrounded by DOA on one side and are at the edge of Delta on the other side. In order to bring new blood into the alliance we are going to help build up our newer alliance team mates. I accept that this is a long term strategy but it is one I believe in as we were all noobs once.

It is an attempt to stop us going the way of Pergamum in the long term. That isn't supposed to be an insult. It is just an observation, whether right or wrong. Our view of Pergamum was that they lost members and couldn't replace them so they had to merge to survive. We don't want this to happen to us so we are going to try a different strategy.

I don't think this will weaken us as a lot of the smaller players are behind the lines and having a few smaller players sitting about behind the lines is basically neither good nor bad. However our hope is that there will be a few gems in there who can help us in the weeks and months to come.

I am sure there will be accusations of MRA and desperation, but this move is just a tactic. It may work and it may not but it is just a tactic. Our main players are still our main players, but why not train in house? After all, the alliance limit is 500 so we might as well use some of it.

 

[DeletedUser]

Yes, people leave the game, especially at war time when they cant handle the situation. War requires more focus and activity than peace time.

Little insight:
Yes, Pergamum didnt have a training alliance and was occupying only 1 ocean (after merge with Vanguard 2) and little parts of others. As game evolves alliances which want to compete in the race to the crown of tree have to get more and more strong players. When early days were over Pergamum was at war with RMs and surrounded by big alliances like TFP and DoA. Few of us could have given good fight against them but we would not defeat them. We could have stayed in place or move on. We decided that we want to keep our aggressive nature and keep fighting and attacking - thats what Pergamum was famous for. We had to pick a side and join incoming war. I wasnt in Pergamum since the beginning so cant speak much about it and dodnt know how it happened that it ended uo in this situation but Im guessing it was result of "close family" attitude/politic of its founder - ScarSymmetry. Something like Asylum maybe? I dont know much about Asylum but thats what my imagination tells me.

I understand your decision regarding new members... Personally I think that the same thing happened as always - you realised how many really active and strong players you have once war started. It happens everywhere. RMs was in similar situation, they didnt have enough good players to move on. Few of them could hold their positions but thats all. Pergamum was always battle-hardened team aware of all inactives and weak links.

 

[DeletedUser]

Hmmm interesting. Strangely enough merging two alliances that are 'struggling' to retain active members can hardly be called an MRA as the goal of PL was (surely) to promote players as they develop into TFP. I have noticed a new bunch called Forgotton Warriors emerge that seems to be alot of former PL players who split/left (although I might be mistaken) ?

It remains a constant struggle to recruit and retain members for all the top 12 as most are slowly bleeding active players.

 

[DeletedUser]

Hmmm interesting. Strangely enough merging two alliances that are 'struggling' to retain active members can hardly be called an MRA as the goal of PL was (surely) to promote players as they develop into TFP. I have noticed a new bunch called Forgotton Warriors emerge that seems to be alot of former PL players who split/left (although I might be mistaken) ?

It remains a constant struggle to recruit and retain members for all the top 12 as most are slowly bleeding active players.

I guess I should field this one, when the new PL leadership came in we inherited an alliance with members stretching from Ocean 27 all the way to 87. Our core was in 85/86 so we realized our ability to protect the outlying members was very limited, after a lot of discussion we decided that the best way to protect these none core players was to set up sister alliances to our own and give them full autonomy on issues such as leadership, invites, strategy etc.

We kept in touch, I gave guidance when it was needed but other than that they seemed to be coping just fine. Recently I'd be receiving more than a few messages from players who weren't happy with the leadership so I got an invite to them and took a gander. Suffice to say it wasn't up to Phoenix standard and the leaders weren't able to accept things needed to change.

End of the story is I cut our ties with them and now they're a bit pissy with me.

 

[DeletedUser10760]

I've got a funny observation to offer
yesterday... me and few of my friends who also play that game were looking at ranking.. and was like.. w0w TFP is dropping down the ladder..(they dropped on 5th rank at the time) we talked a bit about it and were like well at least they are still sticking up and not all of them going in VM.. (some of them still are - but I guess that's part of war nowadays)
and here the discusion was ended for the time untill it was reopened last night when a friend said "oh goodie.. they decided to go MRA instead... now all my respect is gone."
and than I see my so called companions in sharing of BP's going straight back to 3th place, stronger than ever with 90 new members joining their ranks.. (they should prolly reconsider changing their join policy as it rly should be "got time? we got a slot waiting for you!")
I'm sorry but once I get messages from your big players saying that they HATE IT in your alliance and that they can't belive that YOU are letting everyone in these days.. that's pretty much the lowest rock you can hit
oh and also somethiing said to me by YOUR player:
TFP actually have a filosofy that they are fighting a war that THEY can't loose: as they are on edge of delta and whenever they see their citys conquered, they can just take other citys from ocean 86 and keep on "fighting".. that's..handy..
(the sad thing is that I'm not making this up..)

I'm stilll waiting for any kind of actual attempt from you guys while drinking coffee in the middle of your ocean in my 5th city taken from you, but hey you are PLAYING AGAINST THE ODDS, we should show more understanding.. (having a laugh by my coffee, cheers!)

hope it wasn't too personal.. it just seems that by getting insults everyday by your players calling me names and stuff it seems appropriate that I put my word on the forum aswell..

 

[DeletedUser]

yes heartek, this is something confirmed which came out in the previous posts and our observations. While we take TFP cities, they just take new from inactives and try to even out the numbers.
It does somehow remind me Soviets tactic of "burden land" when they were escaping east from Germans burning everything behind (their own people, villages, removing factories etc). It did work for them as Russia is/was country occupying huge size of land but the question is - is this enough in game like Grepolis? Because lets be honest, we dont play to survive but we play for fun and to "win"/progress.

Their tactic can be also now called Tic Tac maneuver it did work for him and was efficient keeping him in the game, however the difference is that he has now strong active alliance behind him and its only one player.

How many of us would be happy with merely surviving day after day without any successes? TFP will be able to say that they "survived" DoA attacks or maybe even (who knows) outlasted DoA but cost of it is the lost of fun and maybe even dignity. Is it worth it? Also not everyone likes to "move out" so only most stubborn players will survive...

Regarding forgotten warriors - 2 days ago their name was Phoenix Rising. They had on their profile page written that are second TFP training alliance (I thought what a nonsense lol) I wiped few cities who were on my islands the same day and the next morning I saw they changed their name into forgotten...with that info...

We are a former train alliance to TPF and we removed saying we had no point well we are now an independ alliance and we have no intentios of stop growing we will be larger then PL and more powerful than TFP and they will remember are name dlnt ry and stop us we will get you one way or an other

well...this is just below any standards

 

[DeletedUser5270]

GROM I actually like your USSR analogy. I think the USSR would have won anyhow as they were the bigger nation (albeit technologically and organisationally inferior at the time), but the change in their fortunes actually happened when the USA got seriously involved in the war.

We would love TH to take advantage and enter the war against you, although that is just a forlorn hope and they are more likely to fight against us than with us, so we probably don't have a big savior.

However I am also reminded of the fall of Singapore, the British surrendered just as the Japanese were going to pull back due to lack of ammunition. The Japanese got lucky that day and there is a lesson there in hanging on as long as possible.

Obviously we don't want to just hang on. I would point out that the defender normally gets double the BP that the attacker gets. This in itself is a certain advantage in the long term.

In regards to heartek's comments, I did say there would be accusations of going MRA but this is nonsense. We are simply merging our training alliance into us. As a consequence of this there will be some players in strange places but I doubt they would last too long if they are in DOA territory. If we just recruited small players from anywhere then they would just get conquered or farmed very quickly and we are not that silly. We are in a situation where we have obvious frontiers and we can successfully have smaller players behind these frontiers without them having the risk of being conquered or farmed. We can then help the players with potential become bigger players. This isn't MRA, this is just sensible.

What I would say is that I would always prefer to be in our position than in the position that Black is in. Black can really only exist as long as DOA and TH let them as most of Black's cities can be attacked at the same time. Our frontiers give us a unique advantage that some other alliances don't have. It is actually very hard for DOA to bring their full strength to bear on us as a result of this. I do believe this is a point GROM has made when arguing that the fighting is closer to 1 to 1 than we make out.

If we recruit 3k players in ocean 55 for example, then the MRA allegation is fair enough. If we recruit a 3k player in 85 then that is just tactical and shows we are planning for the long term. After all what harm can it do to help smaller players grow in our core oceans. DOA can't conquer most of them and even if they were not that active they are not a drain on our resources as they are not in the danger zone.

I would like heartek to explain what is so wrong with that.

In terms of the comments about TFP having the view that we can't loose this war. Have you never heard about rallying the troops? Also I actually do believe that it is very hard for a determined person or alliance to go out of existence if they want to exist. The people who made this game made it with the advantage being with the defender on purpose. They do not want to loose customers and they built Grepolis with that in mind. We know this and we will use it to our advantage as much as possible. Yes we can loose but I think it is very unlikely that a well run alliance in our situation can be totally conquered. When alliances loose it is because they loose heart and players start running to other alliances. Yes this could happen to ourselves but I doubt it as H17 is a very good leader and I believe that I am rather good myself. People may disagree with me but please save your gloating until we are destroyed. As long as we survive then my point stands.

 

[DeletedUser]

Survival of fittest

 

[DeletedUser10760]

what's wrong with that? you count urself as an elite alliance, one that will hold everything off and survive by all means but you seem to have forgotten that survival isn't the point in a war game, victory is. Theres nothing victorious in conquering ghost citys and backing in the 86 ocean.. I'm not here to debate.. you run your little brave soldiers in the safe net of ocean 86, just don't be surprised if people will get fed up with your cowardly tactics

and about draining.. all you're going to drain is your guys will to play the game
a lot of them already lost it as I've heard

and about mass joining being a tactical thing.. everyone could claim that.. and heres another heads up.. noone likes to be called MRA aswell

Also, alliance looses when the leaders start to think of survival over fighting. And yet again even tho the answer had been screaming all over the forum and the game for quite some time, I must go back to.."why would you start that war, even tho you "can't loose it"?" that doesn't seem such a smart leadership to me

 

[DeletedUser]

Well, last imperica post makes a lot of sense and the strategy itself is valid, not that MRA per se but heartek make good points as well.

As far as I understand why TFP did chose to do their "organised retreat" I still have doubts if its what their members would like.

TFP has enough players and keep their oceans very tight, have strong core, its secured from many sides and should be able theoretically to push DoA back, however it doesnt. That leads me to think that there must be a lot of inactive or unwilling to participate players (which has been already suggested by imperica) or maybe leadership is unable to organise their masses or both.

I knew many alliances deluded, believing and claiming out laud how strong they are till first real war started. Then all weakneses were coming out. In all honesty I believe that TFP wasnt typical MRA alliance but again leadership wasnt active enough to organise their players into a working battle unit.

MRAs make mistake blindly sticking to points, numbers without consideration of many other factors. TFP wasnt that blind but still made mistake thinking that if a player conquer many cities (has many points) then he/she must be a good strong fighter. Its not purely MRA attitude but somehow close to it. Also dont forget that TFP empire was built on many merges, while DoA made only 1 big merge with Pergamum. Thinking in box, focusing on numbers not quality - these are TFP leaders sins. This is why Pergamum was so small - 90% of members were battle hardened, experienced, active, cooperative and communicative players. My alliance (Vanguard which merged with Pergamum) had 20 members only and I was kicking out people every week and didnt care that they were in top 5 point wise if they were not participating in our activities, posting, nothing.

I knew/know many sim-city players who got a lot of cities because they were lucky enough to be in the right place and in the right alliance but their war skills suck. TFP didnt have any serious war before (destroying MRA SE doesnt count). People dont have experience in coordinating attacks, timing, wave builts etc. Now when war progress "suddenly" good players leave the game (it happens but why so many of them?) and suddenly TFP needs masses from PL to fill gaps. Why? Because nobody before the war knew how "fit" the alliance really is. TFP maybe has few smaller organised mini groups but as the whole alliance these are just masses led by few active players.

Maybe if TFP had the same politic as Pergamum or Vanguard they would cut off fat much earlier and realise that they have as many real fighters as those 2 mentioned alliances and it deosnt really make them 3rd top alliance capable of challenging DoA. Just to draw a picture (not to brag "we are better you are worse") I can say that before Pergamum joined DoA it had very similar amount of attack BPs to the whole TFP - pergs were ranked 9th or 10 at that time and had 30-40 players, being as far as I remember in top 5 BP wise. TFP is just a lazy fat version of Pergamum if we focus on numbers of active and reliable players (not structure, politics etc).

Sorry but I cant do anything else but blame TFP leadership for that situation, even though I have big respect to h17waii as a leader. Sticking to big players (with many cities) and not considering their quality is MRA-ish and led many alliances down to the bottom. Tibs was shouting at me one night saying that "pergs die on their @sses" and "we (TFP) are 3 times bigger than you (pergamum)", trying to show his power - this attitude is MRA-ish. The only difference between TFP and pergs is that pergs didnt accept semi-active, ghost members who can only take inactive or easy cities, while TFP thought that having them, makes them stronger. Why do you think in south (oc76) our team kick your asses now? Quality over numbers. We might be close matched but you just have way to much fat.

 

[DeletedUser5270]

Everyones situation is a product of their actions and the actions of those around them, as well as a little bit of luck (whether good or bad).

As an alliance we were expanding (by what ever means) and had taken up a nice position on the east of Delta. We had (and still have) aspirations of being the most powerful alliance in Delta. Against us was that TH and DOA were here before us and therefore were bigger and more experienced. However going for us was that we were well placed geographically and would never have to suffer being attacked on all fronts.

We made a play for equaling DOA and TH in size. i.e. the much publicized attempted mergers with Pergamum and Rainmaker. We were then going to attack DOA and had a very good chance to become number 1. OK we goofed this up and we don't need to argue over the details anymore as we have done this in the past, but this was our mindset. I am sure that you will agree that world domination is a good mindset as I am sure you have a similar mindset yourself and surely it is the point of the game.

The failed mergers were a double-whammy for us. Not only didn't Rainmaker and Pergamum join us but they joined our rivals DOA. This resulted in us being pretty much boxed in by DOA. Credit has to be given to FortyFour for this as it was a major blow to our aspirations.

We then had to make the decision about do we just linger on and wait for DOA to attack us as we fully believed DOA would or do we take the initiative and attack DOA before we get too weak? The double-whammy meant that we were effectively diplomatically cut off from any meaningful allies and DOA would attack us at some point when is was right for them to do so. FortyFour himself has told me that DOA members get a bit restless if they aren't fighting a couple of wars, which is fair enough. Anyway in short we attacked. It was the only war left open to us and it was going to happen sooner or later, so it might as well be sooner.

We did not start this war out of some sort of illogical and misguided attempt at glory. FortyFour's diplomatic prowess had already beaten our world domination aims (and well played to him by the way). We started this war because we had to fight it at some point anyway.

I am not trying to use the sympathy card or the underdog card. I am just saying that this is the situation as we saw it. Our viewpoint was that there was no point in waiting for the inevitable and so we now fight each other.

And why is it that certain people talk about lack of respect? We are fighting and it is good fun so surely that is the big thing. The point of the game, over and above world domination, is fun.

Also I would say again that we are not collapsing as an alliance. we need to do something about 76 I admit and with our new players we have plans to slowly damage IOA in 86 as well, but we are not retreating into the 80's. We were already in the 80's.

I think half the sniping is from people that are shocked that we have not already collapsed and been beaten. Going back to the WW2 analogy both Britain and the USSR had their asses kicked for a very long time, but they stayed in there and then slowly turned the tables. They made up for their losses and then eventually won. What ever happens, this is going to be a long war and I think that is something both sides should be pleased about. Both sides have now done their sniping and bitching. It is now time to just fight each other whilst respecting each other.

 

[DeletedUser]

Fair enough,
on the side note, as you go through our history, Forty wasnt negotiating merge with RM (even though it was proposed to him at some point). DoA wasnt desperately looking for allies and didnt push us to join them - they just made a clear and honorable offer as their leader respected our ex alliance. It was the only DoAs big merge Im aware of but its my private comment, Im not representing officialy DoA here.

RMs as Pergamum were also considering few options. In this game there is no much ideology and you can only join better team or worse, the one which you like/respect more or the side which can be more challenging. Anyway, it was me who started serious talks with RMs to get them on board.

Pergamum against odds (small numbers and distance) managed to take city after city on RMs territory and heavy fights built mutual respect between top players of both alliances. I was commanding/coordinating pergs operations in their, RM, ocean and I was the one who talked at loud on pergs forum that we should consider joining TFP and even wrote how we would do it. Who knows what would happen if a certain person (TFP leader) wasnt there during our talks, maybe pergs and RM would be on your side now but its all water under bridge now.

I can only say that Pergamum (and Vanguard) were always very ambitious, ballsy and honorable alliances and therefore will now spread destruction under DoA banner. Compare it to samurai code - we all have different origins, are ex pergs or RMs warriors but the banner we are going to die for is DoA. I cant speak in name of all players but this is how I see it.

There is nothing more for me to say here now - I will be back with war news

 

[DeletedUser]

yes heartek, this is something confirmed which came out in the previous posts and our observations. While we take TFP cities, they just take new from inactives and try to even out the numbers.
It does somehow remind me Soviets tactic of "burden land" when they were escaping east from Germans burning everything behind (their own people, villages, removing factories etc). It did work for them as Russia is/was country occupying huge size of land but the question is - is this enough in game like Grepolis? Because lets be honest, we dont play to survive but we play for fun and to "win"/progress.

It's not a Soviet tactic, it's as old as warfare itself. Something of a moot point in any case, burnt ground isn't possible in Grepolis for very obvious reasons.

 

[DeletedUser]

ok, I used a shortcut, im not a historitian but I can say that nobody before did that on such a massive scale as soviets during wwII - they were even packing factories brick after brick and rails, so this is why they come first to my mind.

You cant destroy towns but leaving your weaker players with no support while trying to catch up by taking inactive cities and recruting untrained masses from east must bring this picture to anyones mind.

Ive heared from few TFP players that they were asking for help and didnt get any - it seems to me that only some of them (the strongest) get support while others are just a cannon fodder left for enemy. We take their cities, lose city slots (CPs) and it does slow us down.

 

[DeletedUser]

I cannot understand this strategy(reverse engineering). If a well run alliance is forced to become a MRA, there was something seriously wrong whether you accept it or not.

I do agree with G.R.O.M. that most of the times leaders asses their strength based on average points or ranks which is ridiculous. Taking inactives or semi active players doesn't make you a great player. Even BP is not a measuring standard as it can be accumulated easily. These types of players run at first opportunity when they face a good player or organized alliance. Life, family and other priorities. heehee. A player who has 20+ city and run easily w/o fight makes me believe, they are cowards and because their ego is hurt, so they look for excuses.

 

[DeletedUser]

Life, family and other priorities. heehee. A player who has 20+ city and run easily w/o fight makes me believe, they are cowards and because their ego is hurt, so they look for excuses.

I'm a bit confused (as usual), how can you have the concept of cowadice or bravery in clicking buttons on a computer? It is a simple matter to understand that grepolis requires not much time while building cities and fighting smaller and less active players. When fighting a very large and active group (like DoA), the time required becomes much greater. Even a single day offline could easily see you wiped out to a point where you can't recover.

In that regard, it is very unforgiving game.

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm a bit confused (as usual), how can you have the concept of cowadice or bravery in clicking buttons on a computer?

Ok long epic about courage....

How will you define courage then? I havent met in my life any definition of bravery which excluded clicking buttons on a computer.

Courage is a virtue, the way of behaving, attitude toward obstacles and it does cover every aspect of our life, starting from everyday tasks and finishig on risking life in extreme circumstances. It is connected with risk however there are so many definition around. Ernest Hemingway defined courage as "grace under pressure". It has been defined in so many other ways... “the ability to stand up for what is right in difficult situations”, "the ability to seek a goal in spite of obstacles" etc etc

Once you invest a lot of time in this game you risk everything you achieved here by standing up to fight against a strong enemy (the one which actually can take it from you, not the one who is to far away). There is risk and lost involved in here and even though we are speaking about virtual creations, the fact stays that these are things that people desire, otherwise they would not be playing. Of course importance might be lower on our priority list, like if you ask me if I prefer a new car or new city in grepolis I will go for a car but it doesnt mean that these virtual empires have no importance to people at all.

Players by chosing to stand up for what is right, risk losing everything they achieved/accumulated in this game. The more they risk, the braver they are. Attacking isolated player who has only 1 small city while having 10 is not brave, the risk of losing is very small. What is the right thing you ask me? For example being loyal to those who you used to call your friends, family, commrades whatever. Leaving them in need by escaping permamently to VM is not brave.

Now regarding your examples here... yes it all depends how much time you have to spare. You say they had time to take many inactive cities but dont have time to fight active players - very smart way to avoid talking about skills of your players, because nobody can tell now how good or bad they are, they just dont have time...

Yes, time avaibility is so important in this game that it dominates over tactical skills and I know that not having time is not equal of not being smart or brave enough. However with few exceptions this game is played mostly by working people, I know a lot of guys in DoA who have full time jobs, so standards are not that high, you know? You dont have to be jobless internet maniac to be able to compete.
Also being not able to get online as often as the enemy doesnt have to push you to escape to VM - if you do that its just your choice and shows lack of character and balls as you are to scared to lose your cities. Simply play as much as you can and eventually lose it but dont attack only 10 times smaller players than you or run to VM just to save for a while your precious cities. If you tell me its a tactical move to make it impossible for us to take these cities, then you are so wrong. There are many other cities around and all you do is weakening your own team. Also VM should be used for vacations only not as a part of anyones strategy - using it that way is dishonorable and is an act of cowardess.

If you dont have time to fight active players then you are "bad", unreliable grepolis player and your strength is equal zero. If you had time to take 20 cities but dont have time to fight in war then its simply an excuse, you are to lazy, not good enough or just a coward. Thats what I believe King-Fu tried to say here. If Ive learnt anything playing browser games is that there are many people with no character around, ready to do everything to save their virtual possesions. If its really only a "clicking buttons game" why people keep lying, getting all emotional, sending personal insults, beg for mercy or run away instead of just playing/fighting no matter what? If one is a coward or a person with no character in the real life then he/she wont be any different here. You have the courage or not.

 

[DeletedUser]

Ha ha... you do make me laugh G.R.O.M. No one can deny you are a very active and able player, but to suggest the way some players play this game shows bravery is farcical. Bravery is commonly mistaken for bravado. I would suggest that is the case here?