Turbo round dynamics discussion

Shadow · October 13, 2009, 03:50:35 PM

This round, I have only leader attacked one person. Leaders as a rule do not use leader attacks, it just isn't worth it. And although I say you see it less at the end of the round, that doesnt mean that it is by any means common at any time in the round.

Juska · October 13, 2009, 06:06:34 PM

I've taken 82 Leader Attacks compared to 3 troop attacks over the past 19 hours.

Shadow · October 13, 2009, 06:27:06 PM

and how are the people who did it faring as far as netting goes? ^_^

Alazar is Back · October 16, 2009, 04:11:00 AM

Juska your argument=fail.

Gen. Volkov · October 17, 2009, 01:47:59 AM

Oh I dunno about that Ally. I've attacked for land with leaders more than a few times. Of course my land is usually absurdly low at the beginning of my run, so I'll be losing a bunch of leaders anyway. Today for example, I started on 11k land. So I leader attacked Brick by Brick 21 times, built huts, earned loyalty, and still made 40 bil cash and 3 bil food. I have 334 mil NW at present, Shadow, which puts me in 5th place. :)

Juska · October 17, 2009, 10:16:00 AM

Alazar your lack of argument = fail.

If you don't have any sort of evidence or useful thought to aid to the discussion then please do not post.

What empire are you even anyway? Probably #43 the Indy who pure one stacks.

Sevz · October 17, 2009, 10:44:54 AM

as far as the excuse, you were only broken because i onlined you Shadow, you were onlining me at that point, i had the resources to take you out anytime but as my ingame messages said, i wanted to work with you and i was trying to get us both locking

as far as it goes with leader attacks, not a good way to get land, it makes your leaders power finish on 100% far later in the run and cuts profit by heaps

defensive empires are always gonna get taken over in fast servers

Shadow · October 17, 2009, 11:33:24 AM

I didn't online you and you know it, but it's a moot point now.

Sevz · October 17, 2009, 01:13:51 PM

i was online before you started running turns, during you running turns and after you got beat up

your making me sound like a dirty player that needed to online attack when i was just retaliating at the time because i didn't like watching you attack me

do you remember me trying to work as a 2 man team for about 4 days beforehand? i had plenty of time and resources prior

Shadow · October 17, 2009, 01:41:47 PM

It is only an online attack if the guy getting hit is running turns. I made sure you weren't running turns before I attacked, so it wasn't an online attack.

I wasn't interested in teaming up, as I explained to you. Now it really doesn't matter at this point anyway.

Alazar is Back · October 18, 2009, 05:38:42 AM

Quote from: Juska on October 17, 2009, 10:16:00 AM
Alazar your lack of argument = fail.

If you don't have any sort of evidence or useful thought to aid to the discussion then please do not post.

What empire are you even anyway? Probably #43 the Indy who pure one stacks.

Are you blind? Dude seriously, leader players will ALWAYS break indy players with leaders. Indy Players will ALWAYS break leader players with troops. I have done this so many times, the defense obviously makes it a little harder, but saying that there is no point in playing indy is just stupid.

Troop Attacks is way better for a leader player, they will ALWAYS use troops first(at least the smart ones). Idk if you have ever played a leader strat but leaders are crucial and you don't want to have to destroy most of them everyone run and start building them back up from scratch.

That enough for you? Probably not cause you will just sit and argue your point til the end of time cause your head is to duck thick. Have fun with it.

Shadow · October 18, 2009, 08:51:30 AM

You could have posted that without swearing. Please do that next time.

Gen. Volkov · October 18, 2009, 02:09:16 PM

Also, you just argued both sides of the point...

Anyway, I usually attack with troops before leaders, if at all possible. If the person I'm going after either has to many troops for me to break profitably, then I may leader attack, because I'll probably still make more money from the land I get than I would if had shelled out for the troops I needed and not sacrificed the ratio. This current round, there have been a few times where I knew even if I spent all my cash, I might not be able to break, and so I hit with leaders. But as a rule, I attack with troops before leaders, even against well-rounded defenses.

Alazar is Back · October 19, 2009, 01:09:07 AM

Quote from: Shadow on October 18, 2009, 08:51:30 AM
You could have posted that without swearing. Please do that next time.

Oops, happens sometimes. But don't be so hypocritical cause there are many that i see that you swear in as well.

Quote from: Gen. Volkov on October 18, 2009, 02:09:16 PM
Also, you just argued both sides of the point...

Anyway, I usually attack with troops before leaders, if at all possible. If the person I'm going after either has to many troops for me to break profitably, then I may leader attack, because I'll probably still make more money from the land I get than I would if had shelled out for the troops I needed and not sacrificed the ratio. This current round, there have been a few times where I knew even if I spent all my cash, I might not be able to break, and so I hit with leaders. But as a rule, I attack with troops before leaders, even against well-rounded defenses.

I know I argued both sides, and good debater knows that you have to give in to valid points in the opposing argument.

And Ditto, troops are far easier and more efficient to use if at all possible.

Gen. Volkov · October 19, 2009, 01:34:27 PM

QuoteI know I argued both sides, and good debater knows that you have to give in to valid points in the opposing argument.

And Ditto, troops are far easier and more efficient to use if at all possible.

Yes, you have to acknowledge both sides, but you also have to make a point. You never did. You just rambled for 3 paragraphs.