Home English (UK) Alliance News & Diplomacy

We need new Moderators!


ModeratorWe are always on the lookout for talented people to join the team. That means you! If you think you could help us organise and inform the community while entertaining everyone then apply. We need people to help out on the forum, behind the scenes with announcements, on Discord and on our other Social Media channels.


If this is something you think might be of interest to you, HERE

En1 War

1929

Comments

  • skel (GB1)skel (GB1) GB1 Posts: 20
    edited 04.04.2014
    Thanks for the kind words shonalouise, we here at CG can assure you we are having some of the best fun we have had in ages.

    The RV war that's erupted is more fun than any event GGS could come up with and the BSK ally that has been constantly tool cleaning has given us a target for future use.

    Would love to stay and chat but need to go - got a war to fight here.

    Have fun.
    skel @ en 1
  • marste3marste3 Posts: 20
    edited 04.04.2014
    Just out of interest... who in BSK is going to capture the capital? Is it the person who has this 'unfair equipment' by any chance?
    marste @ en 1
  • BraveDan3 (GB1)BraveDan3 (GB1) Posts: 70
    edited 04.04.2014
    Once again i will ask a simple question in hope i will get a reply today, as i said yesterday i understand both veiws but what i want to know is why bsk dont go for the capital alone ?why do they feel the need to ask uk, musks and epic to take down cg ? and if musks/epic have history with cg why have they only waited till bsk to go at cg then join in why was this history not sorted out before bsk went at cg or after ?
    BraveDan3 @ en 1
  • blucherblucher Posts: 19
    edited 04.04.2014
    attacking another player/ being attacked by another player=good :)

    warring another alliance=better:):)

    server war=best :D:D:D

    personally would attack any of the Bsk's for jolly but would probably get slung out of Epicness :(
    blucher @ en 1
  • Marley38GamerMarley38Gamer Posts: 15
    edited 04.04.2014
    BraveDan3 wrote: »
    Once again i will ask a simple question in hope i will get a reply today, as i said yesterday i understand both veiws but what i want to know is why bsk dont go for the capital alone ?why do they feel the need to ask uk, musks and epic to take down cg ? and if musks/epic have history with cg why have they only waited till bsk to go at cg then join in why was this history not sorted out before bsk went at cg or after ?

    Ok, I see 3 questions there so here are 3 responses to them in the order they were asked. 1, Capturing a capital is very big operation which BSK could do on their own (it would just take longer). This does not mean we are in a hurry, we can keep this up for months. If we dont go for it alone its because we dont need to. If the other volunteers have decided the fun is over and walk away then we will do it alone. 2. we dont feel the need to ask anyone for help and havent done so. any alliance fighting alongside us are doing so through their own choice. As far as I am aware, Musks have played no part in the war. 3. Good question and one I cannot answer. I can tell you that it wouldnt have been possible to sort before as we have not been planning this for sometime, we saw an opportunity and went for it so it couldnt have been postponed. UK and Epicness would have to answer that for themselves if they felt the need to explain their actions to you. Hope this helps!
    Marley38Gamer @ en 1
  • Baldrick (GB1)Baldrick (GB1) Posts: 4,948
    edited 04.04.2014
    I would like to point out that we what we want is Brian58's capital. The choice for that to be in CG was his and theirs, not ours. So this war is with CG because they are the holders of that capital, and for no other reason. If CG want to bring in other alliances to help them, that's fine with us. They have already and so far all have backed out except Free dominion. we are expecting more to join their side, and we know they are actively seeking that help. Why should we back down on our assault when they are continuing with their defence, and looking to expand it?

    As Marley pointed out, capturing a capital is no mean feat, especially if you are up against an alliance who are opening gates for at least 50% of all battles. This means that the support they can have at that capital, which is considerable, is slow to deplete. What this means is that it will take longer.

    To the player who asked if out capturer has the "unfair equipment", can I ask what relevance that has to this discussion? Although I, and a lot of other players feel the new Chuck Norris EQ is unfair and bad for the game, I'm not complaining that Brian58 has it. It's in the game and we have to deal with it. It's the fact that GGS introduced it at all that is wrong. Again, having that EQ on the capital will prolong this war.

    If we could finish this today we would, but anyone who knows this game knows that isn't possible when you are up against an active, strong alliance like CG, who have stocked up on gate oil.
    It's been a while.....



  • BraveDan3 (GB1)BraveDan3 (GB1) Posts: 70
    edited 04.04.2014
    Ok, I see 3 questions there so here are 3 responses to them in the order they were asked. 1, Capturing a capital is very big operation which BSK could do on their own (it would just take longer). This does not mean we are in a hurry, we can keep this up for months. If we dont go for it alone its because we dont need to. If the other volunteers have decided the fun is over and walk away then we will do it alone. 2. we dont feel the need to ask anyone for help and havent done so. any alliance fighting alongside us are doing so through their own choice. As far as I am aware, Musks have played no part in the war. 3. Good question and one I cannot answer. I can tell you that it wouldnt have been possible to sort before as we have not been planning this for sometime, we saw an opportunity and went for it so it couldnt have been postponed. UK and Epicness would have to answer that for themselves if they felt the need to explain their actions to you. Hope this helps!
    So basicly what you are saying is bsk wanted an easy ride to take the capital and when they relised it would take them months on there own they thought sod this and got help from epic and uk to help take out one alliance ?? seems a bit unfair to me yes fair enough if bsk and there wings went for the capital and hitting the capital that still 3 to 1 but asking uk and epic to help makes it 5 to 1 how is that fair and lets no forget all of the alliances have 60 + members to cg 53 members also how is that fair play ?
    BraveDan3 @ en 1
  • BraveDan3 (GB1)BraveDan3 (GB1) Posts: 70
    edited 04.04.2014
    Ok, I see 3 questions there so here are 3 responses to them in the order they were asked. 1, Capturing a capital is very big operation which BSK could do on their own (it would just take longer). This does not mean we are in a hurry, we can keep this up for months. If we dont go for it alone its because we dont need to. If the other volunteers have decided the fun is over and walk away then we will do it alone. 2. we dont feel the need to ask anyone for help and havent done so. any alliance fighting alongside us are doing so through their own choice. As far as I am aware, Musks have played no part in the war. 3. Good question and one I cannot answer. I can tell you that it wouldnt have been possible to sort before as we have not been planning this for sometime, we saw an opportunity and went for it so it couldnt have been postponed. UK and Epicness would have to answer that for themselves if they felt the need to explain their actions to you. Hope this helps!

    And no offense to epic or uk but you are starting to make you allies look a bit silly by saying you dont know why they are helping now ?And bascly saying bsk can do it on there own and you do not need your allies ? lol this is all very confusing
    BraveDan3 @ en 1
  • Baldrick (GB1)Baldrick (GB1) Posts: 4,948
    edited 04.04.2014
    BraveDan3 wrote: »
    And no offense to epic or uk but you are starting to make you allies look a bit silly by saying you dont know why they are helping now ?And bascly saying bsk can do it on there own and you do not need your allies ? lol this is all very confusing

    There are two sides to this, and CG are not fighting on their own, so why should we?

    Daily I receive screenshots of their allies rounding up the server to join CG. So, sorry, but your argument is invalid. If their allies decide to back down, that is their fault, not ours.

    The point Marley is making is that we didn't ask Epic or Uk for their help, they offered it. Why? We didn't go into that much detail, but I would imagine it's because nobody likes CG, or what was TDDM. Even their own family didn't like them. CG ended their pacts with everyone including some of our friends last week because "they wanted to". Bad timing? lol

    So what this comes down to is that two alliances that are disliked are holding on to a capital and most of this server, not as most say here, are happy to see them lose it. Sure, lots of people are complaining about BSK wanting two, but there are more that would be unhappy to see it in the hands of CG/TDDM/FD/whatever they're called.

    If you really don't like it guys, why aren't you helping CG?
    It's been a while.....



  • Angelluv2Angelluv2 Posts: 94
    edited 04.04.2014
    You know what is wrong with this entire thread that people are looking for an explanation for a capital capture in a war game....

    Altho it is highly entertaining so props to those who maintain a good sense of humour and making it an interesting read you get a *thumbs up*
    And the crowd goes ............ EAT, SLEEP, RAVE, GGE, REPEAT!

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • BraveDan3 (GB1)BraveDan3 (GB1) Posts: 70
    edited 04.04.2014
    Baldrick wrote: »
    I would like to point out that we what we want is Brian58's capital. The choice for that to be in CG was his and theirs, not ours. So this war is with CG because they are the holders of that capital, and for no other reason. If CG want to bring in other alliances to help them, that's fine with us. They have already and so far all have backed out except Free dominion. we are expecting more to join their side, and we know they are actively seeking that help. Why should we back down on our assault when they are continuing with their defence, and looking to expand it?

    As Marley pointed out, capturing a capital is no mean feat, especially if you are up against an alliance who are opening gates for at least 50% of all battles. This means that the support they can have at that capital, which is considerable, is slow to deplete. What this means is that it will take longer.

    To the player who asked if out capturer has the "unfair equipment", can I ask what relevance that has to this discussion? Although I, and a lot of other players feel the new Chuck Norris EQ is unfair and bad for the game, I'm not complaining that Brian58 has it. It's in the game and we have to deal with it. It's the fact that GGS introduced it at all that is wrong. Again, having that EQ on the capital will prolong this war.

    If we could finish this today we would, but anyone who knows this game knows that isn't possible when you are up against an active, strong alliance like CG, who have stocked up on gate oil.
    i thought bsk had agreements put it place not to go for another alliances assets once it is there well is it not in the hands of cg now but you are still going for there assets how does that work then lol
    BraveDan3 @ en 1
  • oWarHero (GB1)oWarHero (GB1) GB1 Posts: 97
    edited 04.04.2014
    fujiwara wrote: »
    In no way should it make us more scary to the rest of the server.
    I understand that a lot of you have worked hard to get into the position you are in, but of course it would make you more scary, cos it means that you no longer have to work so hard to get the rewards that smaller alliances may struggle for everyday. You have a good point when speaking about the defensive boost and cost of owning this capital, but do you not think it may encourage laziness amongst your members? Knowing that they can then recruit kgs as and when rather than striving to better themselves by completing dailies etc?
    fujiwara wrote: »
    You can view this here: http://prntscr.com/345ej7

    As far as I'm concerned, every alliance should be able to play how they like. We will not dictate to others how they should play, and if you receive messages demonstrating otherwise from BSK-AF players, I would appreciate it if you would get in touch with me so I can resolve it internally.

    Thank you for this, it's very helpful as I have not seen it before, I've just been told rules along the way. But you must understand that as the most powerful alliance on the game, it is your responsibility to be role models for new players, but occasionally bending your rules is not setting a good example. But lastly, I have experienced it first hand when BSK players have intervened with other alliance's issues because their rules were not adhered to, so it's all very good and well saying that you do not want to dictate, but I've had some of your members (not specifically AF) get all high and mighty and try to take on situations with the fear factor before. I fear this capital will only encourage that more.
    oWarHero @ en 1
  • BraveDan3 (GB1)BraveDan3 (GB1) Posts: 70
    edited 04.04.2014
    Baldrick wrote: »
    There are two sides to this, and CG are not fighting on their own, so why should we?

    Daily I receive screenshots of their allies rounding up the server to join CG. So, sorry, but your argument is invalid. If their allies decide to back down, that is their fault, not ours.

    The point Marley is making is that we didn't ask Epic or Uk for their help, they offered it. Why? We didn't go into that much detail, but I would imagine it's because nobody likes CG, or what was TDDM. Even their own family didn't like them. CG ended their pacts with everyone including some of our friends last week because "they wanted to". Bad timing? lol

    So what this comes down to is that two alliances that are disliked are holding on to a capital and most of this server, not as most say here, are happy to see them lose it. Sure, lots of people are complaining about BSK wanting two, but there are more that would be unhappy to see it in the hands of CG/TDDM/FD/whatever they're called.

    If you really don't like it guys, why aren't you helping CG?

    Who eles is helping cg as far as i was aware they was on there own ?
    BraveDan3 @ en 1
  • BraveDan3 (GB1)BraveDan3 (GB1) Posts: 70
    edited 04.04.2014
    blucher wrote: »
    attacking another player/ being attacked by another player=good :)

    warring another alliance=better:):)

    server war=best :D:D:D

    personally would attack any of the Bsk's for jolly but would probably get slung out of Epicness :(

    Sounds like your part of the wrong alliance ever considered joining cg you may get your wish by the sounds of things
    BraveDan3 @ en 1
  • Baldrick (GB1)Baldrick (GB1) Posts: 4,948
    edited 04.04.2014
    BraveDan3 wrote: »
    i thought bsk had agreements put it place not to go for another alliances assets once it is there well is it not in the hands of cg now but you are still going for there assets how does that work then lol

    Wrong, we had an agreement with the existing capital holding allainces. DU, TDDM and UK. When TDDM plotted to take ours, our agreement with them ended.

    As far as who is helping CG, given the amount of messages flying around the server, I would have thought you would have known that.

    Here's a question: If The Dark Union recruited another wing, would BSK wanting two capitals still be so bad? DU had two up until Sunday, I didn't see anyone complaining about that ruining the server.
    It's been a while.....



  • BraveDan3 (GB1)BraveDan3 (GB1) Posts: 70
    edited 04.04.2014
    Baldrick wrote: »
    Wrong, we had an agreement with the existing capital holding allainces. DU, TDDM and UK. When TDDM plotted to take ours, our agreement with them ended.

    As far as who is helping CG, given the amount of messages flying around the server, I would have thought you would have known that.

    Here's a question: If The Dark Union recruited another wing, would BSK wanting two capitals still be so bad? DU had two up until Sunday, I didn't see anyone complaining about that ruining the server.
    I dont think people are complaining about bsk wanting the capital i think the problem here is the way bsk are handling it by bringing 2 other big alliances in on one after all dont bsk preach about being honorable and fair play ?
    BraveDan3 @ en 1
  • Ollie2220Ollie2220 Posts: 78
    edited 04.04.2014
    Everyone seems a little ignorant of the teams at the moment:

    BSk + Wings, UK, EPIC

    Vs

    CG, TDU, TDW, Real Steel.

    There are other alliances, and Cgs allies are not actually helping them out that much, they have just sent mass attacks on BSK and EPIC during this war. But they haven't stuck up for Crimson at all, which is shameful.

    I posted a timeline of events recently. Check that out on this thread too. BSK are going for the capital. Alls fair, and CG Chose this. CG actually were the ones to declare war officially on BSK.

    Those still confused I hope this cleared it up for you.

    Ollie2220 - Epicness
    of6per.png


    "Epicness are the most consistent of the top ten alliances despite having less players I don't remember them being outside the top ten. Epicness are known for there sense of humour." - Batten, The Syndicate.

    "Epicness is the best non-max player alliance on the server, with great and hilarious members." - JimboJetset, BSK.
  • Giselle3Giselle3 Posts: 243
    edited 04.04.2014
    :thumbup:
    Angelluv2 wrote: »
    You know what is wrong with this entire thread that people are looking for an explanation for a capital capture in a war game....

    Altho it is highly entertaining so props to those who maintain a good sense of humour and making it an interesting read you get a *thumbs up*

    I like you :) and yes, it's why I'm staying out of posting a lot here... I don't see why we need to justify choices... it's a war game and considering things I've seen and heard alliances posting here do in the past and other wars I've been part of on other servers, I admit I don't get the hand-wringing. lol

    However like you, I am enjoying this thread with a bottomless bowl of popcorn. :thumbup:
    Giselle @ en 1
  • Sam4 (GB1)Sam4 (GB1) Posts: 464
    edited 04.04.2014
    blucher wrote: »

    personally would attack any of the Bsk's for jolly but would probably get slung out of Epicness :(

    Blucher... get back in your cage now!!

    Sorry, we don't normally let him out but he was gnawing at the bars.
    Sam4 - Leader of EPICNESS @UK1
  • fujiwara (GB1)fujiwara (GB1) GB1 Posts: 647
    edited 04.04.2014
    oWarHero wrote: »
    I understand that a lot of you have worked hard to get into the position you are in, but of course it would make you more scary, cos it means that you no longer have to work so hard to get the rewards that smaller alliances may struggle for everyday. You have a good point when speaking about the defensive boost and cost of owning this capital, but do you not think it may encourage laziness amongst your members? Knowing that they can then recruit kgs as and when rather than striving to better themselves by completing dailies etc?

    Apathy and laziness are the biggest dangers all the top alliances face, particularly the capital ones, for exactly this reason. We try hard to keep enough goals and targets for people to keep things interesting, without so many as to seem like a slavedriver... harder than it sounds, particularly if anyone joined partly for an easy ride :)
    oWarHero wrote: »
    Thank you for this, it's very helpful as I have not seen it before, I've just been told rules along the way. But you must understand that as the most powerful alliance on the game, it is your responsibility to be role models for new players, but occasionally bending your rules is not setting a good example. But lastly, I have experienced it first hand when BSK players have intervened with other alliance's issues because their rules were not adhered to, so it's all very good and well saying that you do not want to dictate, but I've had some of your members (not specifically AF) get all high and mighty and try to take on situations with the fear factor before. I fear this capital will only encourage that more.

    Yeah, I know, we have built a reputation for dictating, and I'm trying very hard to stamp it out. If we play how we like, so should everyone else. We try to build our peacetime rules to be fair and honest (although wartime is always different ... the last server league war where about 8 alliances took us on at once last June started when we received about 50 RV capture inbounds at once - most people are used to the fact they are part of serious wars).

    Sometimes someone may do something that has repercussions (if we received a blatant tool clean attack in peacetime, with 32 troops and 0 tools for example, we'll normally triple hit that player and maybe a couple of sabos, and tell them why -- enough to make it not worth them doing again, but no more).

    And we are very actively trying to avoid holding alliances responsible for the actions of a single over enthusiastic member.

    As I have said, if you find anyone from AF tell you you're playing the game wrong, or threaten you, let me know. I can only deal with incidents that I know about :)
    fujiwara @ en 1

    Author of the Empire alliance management studio web app - contact me if you want to try it out

    invpng

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file