Verified:

Sov Game profile

Member
2494

Sep 14th 2012, 21:41:28

http://www.earthgraphs.com/...6f49cde44a8a8bb9a427a4f19

Edit: Updated time of warstat link to be more accurate.


Edited By: Sov on Sep 15th 2012, 1:17:11
See Original Post

Sov Game profile

Member
2494

Sep 14th 2012, 23:48:31

SoF opened up with 2 quick chem rushes before the missiles could be sabotaged. Currently 8-4 in SoF's favor.

Still very early in the fight and I expect it to be a bit closer after the initial 24 hours and everyone has a chance to hit. Players accross all timezones need their chance to attack before any assessment can be made.

izapimp Game profile

Member
207

Sep 15th 2012, 0:43:36

SOLS RANKED TOO HIGH!
-maKaroni

The Cloaked Game profile

Member
491

Sep 15th 2012, 1:16:42

I'm posting here so I receive an ingame bonus.

Wulf Game profile

Member
80

Sep 15th 2012, 1:37:44

Nice activity on both sides so far.

Pride Game profile

Member
1590

Sep 15th 2012, 3:22:07

Well Sof is almost doubling Sol in hits...

I was surprised Sol wanted a weekend war they're activity is best on weekdays IMO.

Lord Tarnava Game profile

Member
936

Sep 15th 2012, 4:07:06

wow quite the difference so far

FireFox Game profile

Member
156

Sep 15th 2012, 4:50:29

..

DespicableMe Game profile

Member
484

Sep 15th 2012, 15:12:09

excited .

davidoss Game profile

Member
643

Sep 15th 2012, 16:54:13

I think we can expect SOL to really step it up in the next coming days.

Sov Game profile

Member
2494

Sep 15th 2012, 17:00:45

Agreed. SOL also normally have some ferocious restarts.

Also everyone needs to keep it in perspective. Do not forget that SOL has a fairly new leadership line up (after losing a couple of leaders last set) and it will take time for them to find their feet.

What you are seeing is an Alliance which has only just started to rebuild versus an Alliance that rebuilt a few sets ago.

All that matters is that both involved Alliances enjoy themselves. If SOL is behind right now then they should savour the challenge of trying to get back ahead.

Mockdu Game profile

Member
167

Sep 15th 2012, 20:23:10

Originally posted by Sov:
Agreed. SOL also normally have some ferocious restarts.

Also everyone needs to keep it in perspective. Do not forget that SOL has a fairly new leadership line up (after losing a couple of leaders last set) and it will take time for them to find their feet.

What you are seeing is an Alliance which has only just started to rebuild versus an Alliance that rebuilt a few sets ago.

All that matters is that both involved Alliances enjoy themselves. If SOL is behind right now then they should savour the challenge of trying to get a head.


fixed

TheMatrix

Member
144

Sep 15th 2012, 22:25:08

well put Sov. good luck to both sides.

133tz Game profile

Member
764

Sep 16th 2012, 6:51:30

lol SoF destroyed all the high stock Fascists.

That should be the end of the war :)
I am an EE noob.

KriSatZ Game profile

Member
270

Sep 16th 2012, 7:09:20

From a noobie point of view it looks heavily against the favour of SoF,

But I have played 3 sets, and all 3 of them I've warred and been killed by SoL. They know how to war, and there restarts kill more than the normal countries.

Very good team when they want to be.
Success is in the mind. You must believe you are the best and then make sure that you are.

LaFamiglia - zKriSatZwpn - LaFamiglia

davidoss Game profile

Member
643

Sep 17th 2012, 10:41:35

Great show from both sides so far.

Helmet Game profile

Member
1341

Sep 17th 2012, 11:27:05

bonus

Cougar Game profile

Member
517

Sep 17th 2012, 12:37:41

Perhaps SOL should limit their spy ops to SoFxWAR and leave our netting tag alone...

Wouldn't want to piss them off and be at war with two SoFs at the same time =)

NukEvil Game profile

Member
4327

Sep 17th 2012, 13:07:03

I am going to be rich. I have invented a generator designed to convert anger, hostility, and the energy given off during furious typing, into clean, safe, electricity. It's similar to a breeder reactor, except it doesn't use radioactive materials, and it's powerful enough to transmit power to the entire planet for thousands of years.



Should come in handy when Dagga and Alin get wound up.
I am a troll. Everything I say must be assumed to be said solely to provoke an exaggerated reaction to the current topic. I fully intend to bring absolutely no substance to any discussion, ongoing or otherwise. Conversing with me is pointless.

Kid Game profile

Member
282

Sep 17th 2012, 14:10:22

great war!

bertz Game profile

Member
1638

Sep 18th 2012, 1:55:23

ttt

Duna Game profile

Member
787

Sep 18th 2012, 7:35:14

Good war:) Seems SoF will win...

133tz Game profile

Member
764

Sep 18th 2012, 17:02:25

Originally posted by Cougar:
Perhaps SOL should limit their spy ops to SoFxWAR and leave our netting tag alone...

Wouldn't want to piss them off and be at war with two SoFs at the same time =)


Lol I think SOL thinks your netting tag is sending FA :P
I am an EE noob.

ninong Game profile

Member
1577

Sep 18th 2012, 17:14:22

is sov dead yet? :D
ninong, formerly Johnny Demonic
IX

Mockdu Game profile

Member
167

Sep 18th 2012, 17:16:21

He died while he was doing unmanly things!!!

ninong Game profile

Member
1577

Sep 18th 2012, 17:21:36

did it involve strap-ons?
ninong, formerly Johnny Demonic
IX

Murf Game profile

Member
1212

Sep 18th 2012, 20:06:41

lol 133tz

SoF knows how to stockpile and use said stock, the solers with stock died

Scorba Game profile

Member
663

Sep 18th 2012, 20:42:04

still a few of us with enough stock to play

Boltar Game profile

Member
4056

Sep 18th 2012, 22:00:40

I'm curious how much stock swampy blew today ;)

Pride Game profile

Member
1590

Sep 18th 2012, 22:19:00

I will FA swampy all my stock. If Sol promises to kill Boltar :P

prank

Member
165

Sep 18th 2012, 23:27:26

It is a pretty slow war

Pride Game profile

Member
1590

Sep 18th 2012, 23:31:10

I'm guessing the new way things are being done now.

Now that you guys have had an "even" war which way do you prefer? The old ways or these new ones?

Sov Game profile

Member
2494

Sep 18th 2012, 23:36:19

Yeah the game changes suck to put it bluntly. I understand the intention behind them but I think it needs to be scaled back.

It is horrible to be killing 5 civilians per hit on a walling target with 2k pop. A target can get online, buy troops and logout and subsequently live for another 200 hits. With the hpk hovering between 400-500 it slows down war significantly.

The formula needs to be wound back (i.e adjusted) a bit.

Xinhuan Game profile

Member
3728

Sep 19th 2012, 0:40:37

Ya, agree with Sov. I was telling people that a tagkill is almost impossible by either alliance this reset at 3 to 4 kills daily (assumes 1 to 2 wallers daily).

Servant Game profile

Member
EE Patron
1249

Sep 19th 2012, 6:03:46

While intially, I was against many of the changes, and yes even complained about them,

over time, they grew on me. Yes kills are slower....but that makes a good war longer too:) And it requires new strategies....
Z is #1

Sov Game profile

Member
2494

Sep 19th 2012, 6:17:40

You didn't come up against many wallers with lots of stock. It does not make any sense that the duration of a killrun can be doubled simply because the target buys up 2 million troops.

It also makes it more feasible to not try and kill a waller but leave him and let him recover and then come back to him later, which is also stupid.

bertz Game profile

Member
1638

Sep 19th 2012, 6:19:35

SOF clearly had an early advance which will be hard to recover.
Killing countries with large stocks.
They have better activity.

Murf Game profile

Member
1212

Sep 19th 2012, 6:43:44

Gotta agree the new system is seriously flawed

SAM_DANGER Game profile

Member
1236

Sep 19th 2012, 7:13:43

I'm with Servant on this one. It may be a lot harder to kill a country, but that just means strategies need to be adjusted. From what I understand, with the "attack again" button, if you were targetted in war, you were dead no matter what. Maybe that's overstated.. I don't know because I hadn't been around under that system before these changes.. but I've never been a fan of the virtually guaranteed kill. I always thought it would be better if there were more options in war besides just "do 300 GS or BR" on every target.

I don't know if anybody really cares about this kind of stuff, but the fact that buying up troops extends a kill run is a lot more in line with reality. One troop trying to defend 30,000 citizens should be disastrous. Two million troops defending those same 30,000 citizens should be an entirely different story.

If these changes stay as they are, perhaps the goals in war will change. Instead of just tallying up kills, maybe alliances will focus more on reducing the enemy to a point where they can't do much damage. I don't really see what's so wrong with that.

And BTW, against certain targets, I can think of some pretty easy ways around the big buy up of troops. Just requires some different strategies. Almost every country has some exploitable holes in its defenses, if people just take a breath and look for what they are. And those that don't have any holes should be very hard to kill indeed.

miniii Game profile

Member
144

Sep 19th 2012, 7:37:44

Originally posted by SAM_DANGER:
I'm with Servant on this one. It may be a lot harder to kill a country, but that just means strategies need to be adjusted. From what I understand, with the "attack again" button, if you were targetted in war, you were dead no matter what. Maybe that's overstated.. I don't know because I hadn't been around under that system before these changes.. but I've never been a fan of the virtually guaranteed kill. I always thought it would be better if there were more options in war besides just "do 300 GS or BR" on every target.

I don't know if anybody really cares about this kind of stuff, but the fact that buying up troops extends a kill run is a lot more in line with reality. One troop trying to defend 30,000 citizens should be disastrous. Two million troops defending those same 30,000 citizens should be an entirely different story.

If these changes stay as they are, perhaps the goals in war will change. Instead of just tallying up kills, maybe alliances will focus more on reducing the enemy to a point where they can't do much damage. I don't really see what's so wrong with that.

And BTW, against certain targets, I can think of some pretty easy ways around the big buy up of troops. Just requires some different strategies. Almost every country has some exploitable holes in its defenses, if people just take a breath and look for what they are. And those that don't have any holes should be very hard to kill indeed.


wtf.. WHERE'D THE CAPS GO!!?!?

Sov Game profile

Member
2494

Sep 19th 2012, 7:39:27

The change essentially makes it so a small alliance would have no chance in hell of killing a waller. It favors larger alliances because we can muster the turns to get the kill, but a 20 member alliance would never be able to take out an active war country.

I think Imag experienced that versus Monsters this set.

TaSk1 Game profile

Member
EE Patron
807

Sep 19th 2012, 8:57:37

nice dig into scode there sovy!

early days but it looks like we have proved once again who is the fittest out of sol and sof.
Witness the fitness!
IXMVP.

voltron Game profile

Member
110

Sep 19th 2012, 10:40:50

want to wish Sol good luck. that 200M net difference is going to hard to overcome now. Especially when hitting less then SoF. Both sides have put on good show though.

Pride Game profile

Member
1590

Sep 19th 2012, 13:58:42

Originally posted by Servant:
While intially, I was against many of the changes, and yes even complained about them,

over time, they grew on me. Yes kills are slower....but that makes a good war longer too:) And it requires new strategies....


I don't think it makes a "good war longer" it just prolongs the inevitable.

Murf Game profile

Member
1212

Sep 19th 2012, 15:02:18

Wats this attack again button ppl complain about? Never once saw it and I can hit faster than most ppl without it

AxAlar Game profile

Member
565

Sep 19th 2012, 16:15:07

So far, I like the changes and am for keeping them.

I think its better for morale by extending wars. Of course, this may change if I see it from a smaller alliances perspective, but I don't think it'd make much difference.
-AxA
Mercenary for Hire
AIM: I The Brandon
ICQ: 167324517
MSN:

locket Game profile

Member
6176

Sep 19th 2012, 17:07:45

Those kills are prolonged in the wrong way imo. Seems too easy to live that way. The grabbing changes seem silly to me too.

Syko_Killa Game profile

Member
4999

Sep 19th 2012, 18:24:11

Theres a whole lot of rythym goin round..
Do as I say, not as I do.

prank

Member
165

Sep 19th 2012, 23:58:50

When it comes down to it does it really matter what we perceive as flawed in attacking/defending? No matter how you look at it, the same rules will apply to both sides in a war. The execution of the war is all that matters (as it always has) in determining the winner.

Servant Game profile

Member
EE Patron
1249

Sep 20th 2012, 2:28:44

There were times an imag counry would come online.

We'd stop the kill...Even at mid 40 numbers. it took round 3 on one imag country.

We had to adjust our tatics. And our approach and plan for people coming online. Even at Mid 40's.

The wars will be longer, they will require a change of tatics...both are good things..

Are their issues, yes, do I know how to solve them, no....

But overall the change has grown on me.
It took a 4-5 day tagkill, and changed it into a 10 or so day one. I think that's a good thing.
Z is #1