I know you don't like posts being split, but the general issue is too complex to be bundled. Sorry, but topic-by-topic is for clarity's sake.
you fail to comprehend that either we would destroy you, or be destroyed by you. There was no possibility of us ever working with the Fallen brigade, infact it was the failure of our friends to include us in their plans with you that resulted in their ultimate defeat. now the fallen territory, and the potential power that comes with it is in our control.
I understand that. I wasn't asking for you to work with Fallen. I don't want that either! What I want is for you to realize that it is to the detriment of the game for you to choose to make the game two sided. You've willingly chosen a grand imbalance of the game for the easy win. If it weren't so foolish and frustrating, I'd find it amusing.
Say the UIF had decided to attack the Easterners. Who would stop them?
It is entirely advantageous to your group to counterattack the UIF. They're the "big dog", after all. But you don't, because you're afraid of a challenge.
At the very best, you'll get your chance to fight the UIF now (although I doubt it). But your numbers aren't there.
I also don't remember ever suing for peace with the UIF, probably because it never happened. All in all for you strategus may be over, for me its just beginning. Now we have the potential to make large armies, using the actual equipment we want to use, rather than being forced to use peasant gear. Tthe simple fact is there isn't enough space on the map for all factions to play strategus, so some people will have to be wipped out earlier than others, before they really get a chance.
Well. This is fun. =D If you have 3/5s as many players as them, and 3/5s the ability to make gold (probably worse than that, considering the positive impact of territory size on economic growth), how the flying fuck do you think you're going to do this? If you didn't get it before, you'll sure as hell figure it out soon (assuming this war happens, which is suspicious). Remember- territory is only as valuable as you have players to work it.
It ALL comes down to numbers.
We had a choice, declare war against a UIF faction and attempt to grab their land which would be highly contested and most likely result in our defeat. or destroy you with little effort and have the potential to defend ourselves and act as we like. Obviously we going to pick the easier option.
Indeed. Obvious that you want to play with as little challenge, and in the least interesting way imaginable. You're unimpressive and boring. Nothing new. More on this below.
What's the fucking point in entering a war we're bound to loose when we can reach the same goal with a much higher chance of success. If the roles had been reversed, and you were the UIF and we'd done this to your closest rival, i'm sure yo wouldn't mind.
You weren't "bound to lose" against the UIF. If the roles were reversed, and the collection of factions that I in no way even speak for decided to do what they've never done because they find it atrociously boring and allied with the UIF, I'm sure you'd be pretty peeved about the idiotic choice this existent-because-you-forced-us-to (thus, non-existent in this hypothetical circumstance to begin with) group made as well.
Let me parse that out. You're were never "bound to lose". You're just a coward.
Taking land doesn't matter if you can't use it. This is about the numbers.
If the shoe was on the other foot- wait, it's not, never has, and there's no reasonable indication that it ever would be.
You're a bigger weenie because your coalition is as big or bigger than the fragmented eastern powers anyways.
The UIF could crush you at will, because you act like you don't have a clue what a "balance of powers" is. You're either ignorant or a fool. Until the mechanics change, if the UIF comes for you, you're fucked because the Eastern Powers won't be there to keep the UIF in check.
Why on earth should we seek to destroy the UIF when clearly their numbers are superior to ours, when we can have a good old fashioned holy war against some steppe dwelling heretics.
Destroy? Who said destroy? I'm saying you shouldn't be such a bitch that you and your faction refuse to fight the UIF, make trade agreements to that end, and so royally fuck up the already meager balance of power that it screws everyone over. The UIF will have no challenge fighting you now that the Easterners are gone, which won't be fun for them. You'll have no chance, which won't be fun for you. A few hundred players are now on essentially on the sidelines and that isn't much fun either. Do you think we're just going to wait around doing fuck all while you and Team Carebear just sit on your troops and see who can rack up the high score? Fuck no. That's why you either need to (1) change your policies or (2) find a solution to fix Strategus.
You accuse me of being intellectually dishonest, but you are as biased as i am. You felt the need to create a thread simply to discuss how badly you were crushed. I'm sorry if your factions choices made them unpopular, in the end your not going to do well in strategus unless you've got friends. Whether the system is fair or not doesn't matter, but if you choose to play the game in a way which isn't as effective as it could be, you have no right to complain when your beaten by those who do. In future if you don't like strategus, don't play it. No-ones saying you have to.
Bias and intellectual dishonesty are two different things. I'm absolutely biased. I'm bored, I see a broken system. I want to find solutions that we can all appreciate so we all have
more fun.
You're denying facts that are not particularly obscured, making baseless assertions and assumptions, all the while finding no solution to problems you have yourself accepted exist. That's intellectual dishonesty, not bias.
Your bias is in your defensiveness. You've admitted a problem, but refuse any solution to it. You pretend that the game is going to get better, but base this only on fiction; the facts (the NUMBERS) show otherwise.
@ Garem :You answered the 1st part of my post out of context, but i kinda had a feeling you would do that, so ill just copy paste the important part you missed, if you care to reply on this i would apreciate it:
I dont get it, i seriously dont get it. What is this all about. Why do you whine so much? Lets say you won and wiped wolves, hospitaller. More land for you and YOUR allies. Then you, and your allies would expand even more, because as we all agree more battles more fun yes? Then you would wipe some more factions. OFCOURSE you wouldnt attack your fucking friends, so not atacking your allies and expanding you would be the biggas fucking carebears, THE REASON START IS BROKEN. Dont you understand this??? The only reason you arent the ones branded carebear biggass unbeatable alliance is because you got beaten by a bigger one. So stop being a fucking hypocrite already and prepare for the future battles instead of GTXting from strat
If it was out of context, I apologize. It certainly doesn't look out of context. Precision in writing is important.
Fallen doesn't take land we can't hold. We give it away, sell it off, etc. Why? Because there's no point in holding land you can't use. This is, in large part, how TKoV rose to power, giving more active players the opportunity amongst the ashes of the NE. A distinguishing point is that the NE also had land to fall back upon in the South. The Strat 3.0 Easterners don't. Granted, the NE was in a crappy position after getting wiped. I'd love to find a better solution that would make this punishment for loss less severe.
A fief can hold about 8 players. Non-assigned traders, scouts, and warband leaders are also required. Do the math and check your history. We've never maintained fiefs outside of the steppes (barring the strategic position of Grunwalder Castle in Strat 1.0). Your facts are wrong.
Lastly, why do you think Fallen had an alliance at all? The deck was stacked, 800 players against roughly 100 (Fallen+HRE). We had as much of a choice as we did a chance- none at all. We never wanted this. It would indeed be hypocrisy if we WANTED to create an eastern alliance. But we don't. We are being forced to act in this way. We're tired of it. We want to change the status quo- the few against the many makes for a very boring game. We want the many to be against the many. Why? Faction wipe would stop being an eternal exodus from Strategus if it weren't for the duality of the power blocs as they stand. You can either help find a solution or I'll stop wasting my time addressing your concerns. That being said...
I am very busy. Your grammar and spelling is atrocious. I write meticulously because I'm trying to improve this game. You don't care enough to use spell check. So my second condition on our correspondence is that it ends until you write like a grown man, as I'm getting tired of translating your responses.
+1. I also remember fallens did try to exploit as mad this strat, were ready to stomp whatever poor little clan tried to take their big OP claims, and tried to form a real big badass alliance byz wolves crusaders pecores fcc mercs fallens hre etc etc much larger then your hipotetical uif that really doesn't exist.
You count us as "uif lackey" for example, but did we send tickets against you, did you see any army or do you really think we would just gift our tickets to greys or drz to make wiping u easier? Why should we want that? 
I say all this not to trow shit on you, you did exatly as most of the clan did in every strat round, you just didn't succeed in your plans this time. So this moralistic rant it's really wierd from you .
As in every strat clans with a poorer diplomatic position were wiped at start. Now it's neutral castle and towns battle time, after that there will definitly will be war if it will be an interesting thing to do (if strat will be fixed)
Sharky, I know English is a second language, but similarly to Muffin, I'm struggling to understand you. Please do what you can to edit so we can have a good dialogue.
Exploit? The only issue I'm aware of was the locking down of a fief from an incoming attack. It's also arguable- there was never a rule against it.
Do you know who tried to get this fixed ONE MONTH prior to its happening?
Fallen_Mannhammer. He wants this game to be better. We brought attention to the issue, we suffered (in a unique occurrence of Dev Team attention) for it. Hopefully, this will be fixed as a result of the attention we intentionally brought to it.
What other "exploits" have the Fallen done? Enlighten me.
What "poor little clan" did we stomp on? Enlighten me.
Yes, we attempted to counteract the UIF. There's an important word to look at.
COUNTERact.
We didn't do it because we wanted to have a two-sided war. We've been complaining about this for over a year now. We've been looking for solutions ever since. Why the countercomplaints? Do you really like the system in place? You admitted you're bored with it.
Do something about it. Make it better.
What has Legio done this Strategus? Maybe my information is wrong. All I'm aware of is trading with the UIF. "Walks like a duck, talks like a duck- it's probably a duck."
You can call it or not call it whatever you want. You're adding to the power of a group of individuals that refuse to go to war. For the sake of ease, I'm calling this the UIF. Even if you're not- you might as well be.
Get Legio off of the UIF tit, do something impressive, and I'll change my opinion. Until then you're just another bored and boring clan that sits on fiefs and makes the UIF and her lackeys richer and stronger instead of making this a game of battles and multi-faceted diplomacy.
I wish I knew what your brain was saying, either (1) I can't, or (2) I won't. If it's #1, I assure you, you can. If it's #2, then don't act surprised when Strategus gets boring.
