War is won or lost on the map, economy rules it imo, ability to keep armies together and not lose gear to the enemy. UIF hasnt been able to trade in the normal way which is why this strat is still alive. Looking over how many tickets are lost on each side there is not a huge difference to be honest - rosters seems pretty balanced, gear is slighty in the favour of the antiUIF but then again coordinating 10 different clans takes alot more effort than coordinating 2 (I dont count Sguards).
This strat has potential to become quite good because of what the anti UIF has done sofar - denying open trade for UIF and allies. If trade is free for UIF they will win fast, cause they are better coordinated in trade and has a system for it - while most clans on antiUIF side dont.
The fields of Ibiran is won by the antiUIF by the looks of it - UIF wont connect trade with Polanie at this point but can still trade with themselfs or possibly NA (which I think they wont cause NA sucks even more than EU when it comes to handleing trade).
Interessting and hard to see who has the upper hand atm
possibly at the player base of the game in the 5-10 thousand and with 5-7 opposing alliances, I would agree. But when it 500 people, and 350 of them on one side and 150 on the other.... Its nothing about strategy just numbers.
ability to keep armies together and not lose gear to the enemy?you can not even avoid the block just using an old Soviet tactic of throwing cannon fodder on us. and even then u could not keep village with thousands of gear.
how many tickets are lost on each side there is not a huge difference to be honest it does if its heavy/shiny against armed
rosters seems pretty balancedi agreed that 35 UIF VS 45 anti-UIF is pretty balanced but i still preffer 45 vs 45 battles
today we have pretty nice battles with nice gear and good time
so today we will see if our players want to continue play strategus, or the game has already not worth the effort spent on it