Battle for Europe: Alliances and Discussion
ALLIANCES: form them, declare them, break them! Discuss tactics, play mind games with the opposition, everything and anything to do with battles in Europe.
Replies: 25Views: 523

Domination by alliance

by (deleted profile) at 8/1/2008 12:14 PM
***BEFORE I START*** I do not mean by this to offend any clans or people by what i write (BY NO MEANS am i saying that NiF are Nazis so please dont take offence to that you guys)

Let me explain about WW2 and how it could relate to this game. When the germans started to take over too many terroritorie the allies came around to stop them- they were a group of countries whose purpose was to stop the Nazi threat and regain control of Europe that was being rapidly taken over by the germans.

Right now onto how it is like finalbattleground. NiF are rapidly taking over the battles in Europe by sheer scale of soldiers,strategy and plinks (e.g battle 8), obviously we can't do anything about them earning plinks as they work hard to do that by playing css (so all respect to you guys there). I do think though that when it comes around to the fbg battles we can stop them. By combining the fbg clans together to form a big alliance i think that we can stop NiF in the battles by neutralising their threat as soon it starts so that they dont go on to dominate. So is anyone interested??

-K.nik
Reply To This
  • No replies

    RE: Domination by alliance

    by VirtualVirtual (112 posts) at 8/1/2008 1:05 PM
    Alliance of 2 clans who spent 2 million plinks are more than a match for NIF with their 4+ million plinks.

    This situation on the map is for few reasons.
    First, NIF spawns in Russia where are lots of territories, especially Lithuania, Estonia + Russia. whats important is that they are already secured from east because its the corner of the map so they have only west, south and north to fear of....
    Second, they know that the most important issue at day 1 is to spread wildly. No clan wants a big fight at day 1 because that means they wont get all those neutral territories while fighting NIF
    Third, very important, they have at least 4-5 commanders who can orchestrate their moves much faster than clans with 2-3 commanders. They can spread to neutral territories while fighting in the same time.
    And fourth, they know that they have to ally or make NAP with at least one of their stronger neighbours so they have covered back......

    They played this way for at least 6 battles and they know their tactic well.... You could say they reserved Russia so no one wants to go there....

    I remember the beta versions when VIA played the same tactic but in UK+Ireland+France.... And one time VR and LPA got together and spawned next to VIA and beat them on day 1. VIA survived only by escaping UK....

    Its not like the nazis Third Reich..... You try to spawn Germany and you will see what will happened to you.... ;)

    And there are lots of examples when 3 clans got together and take on 1 big one....

    p.s. That question of yours is better to ask over steam multichat, you dont have to let NIF know you are planning a mass counter attack and with who ;)
    Reply To This
  • Replies: 23

    RE: Domination by alliance

    by RaveRave (244 posts, Moderator) at 8/1/2008 2:14 PM
    Battle 8 was, IMO, ridiculous. There were a number of reasons for this, but I argued enough at the time, so I'm not gonna do it again.

    This battle, things are different - everyone is now aware of NIF. However... things probably won't change, because none of the big clans who could actually take them down trust each other/like each other.

    For example, us (Steamfriends) + VIA could easily take them - we have spawned on both sides, and all we'd need to do is chip away at them. Two problems though - (1) Team up with VIA? Yeah right, you seen their track record? and (2) Yes, we would take them down - but we would also take OURSELVES down, and then the other clans would pick up the pieces of us, and we'd be out too.

    So yes, I'm sure lots of people don't want NiF to win again, but the bottom line is, no-one wants to be the clan to step up, fight them, take them down, and go down with them. And so we all just make alliances with them instead, in the hope that we will be the last clan they attack when they decide to rampage ;p
    --
    Reply To This
    • Replies: 22

      RE: Domination by alliance

      by VirtualVirtual (112 posts) at 8/1/2008 3:03 PM
      tbh, in previous beta versions and in early official battles there was a lot more stabbing in the back, quiting NAPs and turning sides and almost every clan did it....even you Rave ;)
      Reply To This
      • Replies: 21

        RE: Domination by alliance

        by (deleted profile) at 8/1/2008 3:21 PM
        lols so basically evrything i said was for no use then, ah well i'll live
        Reply To This
        • Replies: 20

          RE: Domination by alliance

          by Happy MOOSEHappy MOOSE (29 posts, Supporter) at 8/1/2008 3:58 PM
          If u come to Nifghanistan u better bring gifts or a nuke :D
          --
          It's open season for MOOSE
          Reply To This
          • Replies: 19

            RE: Domination by alliance

            by Daft RaiderDaft Raider (40 posts) at 8/1/2008 10:52 PM
            the fact is people arnt willing to attack the big clans, theyd rather ally with them then moan at the end that noone wants to attack the big clans.

            we have shown time and again that clans when they ally together can take on the big clans and win. its just about having the will to do it.

            there are quite a few powerful clans out there whod rather play second fiddle to one of the big guys than take on the big clans.
            Reply To This
            • Replies: 18

              RE: Domination by alliance

              by RaveRave (244 posts, Moderator) at 8/2/2008 12:10 AM
              Go on then, Raider, you attack them. I'll follow behind.
              --
              Reply To This
              • Replies: 17

                RE: Domination by alliance

                by Coffee NinjaCoffee Ninja (153 posts, Moderator) at 8/2/2008 1:07 AM
                OK a few small things; anyone remember this?



                If we head over to my troop calculator, 2 clans with 2 million plinks each will buy 37,500 troops. 1 clan (ie. NiF) with 5,000,000 plinks will get 30,385 troops. A quick spin over to my Battle Calculator shows that the two smaller clans have a ~73.0% of beating NiF head on [Links to calculators are provided so that any who wish to dispute my claims.. eh well they can't]. So it is clear that it is not a matter of plinks- there are enough clans out there with sufficient budgets to team up and wipe out the larger clans.

                If anything, it is political inaction that allows NiF to get so big. Very few clans have the guts to risk their hard earned plinks on Day and instead focus of expansion (through neutral territory or small clans), hoping that NiF (or whoever it may be) will be weakened by the time they have to be dealt with. NiF/VIA/SF all play upon this as use this "political leverage" to grab themselves large swathes of territory. Which translates into troop bonus. Once you get past 2,000,000 plinks, it is really about your troop bonuses as opposed to how much you spend.

                Ultimately, you are right in your assertion that large clans need to be stopped quickly- but who do you trust enough to take them head on? Even were you to lose, you'd have cost them dearly (the troop bonuses they would have gotten). Everyone plays with their own agenda, and nobody hates the large clans enough to go all out as it would result in certain death if you lose and certain death from "the vultures" if you win. Unfortunately, you might find yourself to be the sacrificial lamb.
                --
                I couldn't give a flying llama.

                FBG Battle Calculator

                FBG Troop Calculator

                Teams of all skill levels, always looking for talent:
                dog-gaming.com
                Reply To This
                • Replies: 16

                  RE: Domination by alliance

                  by (deleted profile) at 8/2/2008 5:27 AM
                  sacrificial lamd you say coffee, well if anyone was to sacrifice plinks to try and stop the big clans from expanding would you consider that an act of idiocy, bravery or lunacy?
                  Reply To This
                  • Replies: 15

                    RE: Domination by alliance

                    by RaveRave (244 posts, Moderator) at 8/2/2008 12:38 PM
                    My opinion - all three.

                    But less bravery.
                    --
                    Reply To This
                    • Replies: 14

                      RE: Domination by alliance

                      by Coffee NinjaCoffee Ninja (153 posts, Moderator) at 8/2/2008 1:46 PM
                      The clans who took it upon themselves to take the big clans head on would not achieve a top 10 position- so you' have to find someone who really really dislikes them. TAR are a prime example of a clan who are willing to charge head first into a battle for an ideal with no regard to troop losses. Or else find a very charismatic leader to unite the masses..
                      --
                      I couldn't give a flying llama.

                      FBG Battle Calculator

                      FBG Troop Calculator

                      Teams of all skill levels, always looking for talent:
                      dog-gaming.com
                      Reply To This
                      • Replies: 13

                        RE: Domination by alliance

                        by VirtualVirtual (112 posts) at 8/2/2008 2:21 PM
                        Tbh its better to take the fight (if possible with one or few allies) than sit by your computer, watching the game and do nothing..... Its a game after all and you are not playing by being passive all the time.... Its like you say you play css by being in spectators...

                        "sacrificial lamd you say coffee, well if anyone was to sacrifice plinks to try and stop the big clans from expanding would you consider that an act of idiocy, bravery or lunacy?"

                        Bravery and lunacy I say! :)
                        Reply To This
                        • Replies: 12

                          RE: Domination by alliance

                          by RaveRave (244 posts, Moderator) at 8/2/2008 5:35 PM
                          The way I see it, Steamfriends can sit back and do our thing, and not worry about attacking NiF and we will most likely achieve a top 3 finish. However, if we unite with another clan and take on NiF, we will most likely end up with a BOTTOM 3 finish. So we really see no point in attacking.

                          Unfortunately our mentality did not suffice last battle, as the primary objective was so low.
                          --
                          Reply To This
                          • Replies: 11

                            RE: Domination by alliance

                            by (deleted profile) at 8/2/2008 5:57 PM
                            ah well, having read through all the posts i think im not going to be passive, always better to take action, i guess most people will not want to ally but i'll charge straight into whats happening.

                            And as for this "TAR are a prime example of a clan who are willing to charge head first into a battle for an ideal with no regard to troop losses" TAR was my old clan so i'll follow in their footsteps,

                            Elimination may be something that might come about of entering terrotories of big clans like NiF but i'll take that risk for the fact that at least i tried

                            O and as for you happy moose "If u come to Nifghanistan u better bring gifts or a nuke :D" we ain't got no nuke, but fighting spirit, we'll fight to the death whether that means holding you up for 15 minutes so that some other clan will win. Also any clans who haven't posted and want to help supply us with a nuke of soldiers are definetly welcome, NiF are lethal and if nothing is done they will triumph over all.




                            -K.nik
                            Reply To This
                            • Replies: 10

                              RE: Domination by alliance

                              by SunTzuSunTzu (67 posts) at 8/2/2008 8:12 PM
                              ultimatly NiF will always claim victory in the end, even if we get beat down several times before. btw i like that word you brought up LUNA-cy :D

                              shame i dont have a clue what it means :(
                              Reply To This
                              • Replies: 9

                                RE: Domination by alliance

                                by (deleted profile) at 8/3/2008 4:27 AM
                                ha ha luna :P

                                just for you:
                                lunacy: (from the dictionary oooooooo) madeness, state of being a lunatic, mad or foolish behaviour, mad or very foolish acts.

                                lols they dont even know what words mean (:P) so with a big force and big words like antdistablishmentarism (O.o figure that out luna :P) i'm sure we can win, anyway wheres that dougle when you him, seems to post in every other thread
                                Reply To This
                                • Replies: 8

                                  RE: Domination by alliance

                                  by MammotHMammotH (1 posts) at 8/9/2008 7:55 PM
                                  killer_nik wrote:

                                  lols they dont even know what words mean (:P) so with a big force and big words like antdistablishmentarism (O.o figure that out luna :P) i'm sure we can win, anyway wheres that dougle when you him, seems to post in every other thread


                                  Lolz, nice quoting one of the longest words in English vocabulary :)

                                  Spelled wrong though :P
                                  Reply To This
                                  • Replies: 7

                                    RE: Domination by alliance

                                    by ForkFork (2 posts) at 8/10/2008 1:49 PM
                                    Well good luck Nik, at least u got some balls :P
                                    Must say you have a better spirit then the SF guys wanting to play 2nd flute, good luck but i bet u fail ;)
                                    http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u224/SaneMadness/Failboat.jpg
                                    Reply To This
                                    • Replies: 6

                                      RE: Domination by alliance

                                      by RaveRave (244 posts, Moderator) at 8/10/2008 6:48 PM
                                      Fork, you probably need to check the outcome of last week's battle - you may find your comment is now irrelevant ;p
                                      --
                                      Reply To This
                                      • Replies: 1

                                        RE: Domination by alliance

                                        by BarillasBarillas (22 posts) at 8/11/2008 11:48 AM
                                        maybe a lil bit late to post but here it goes:
                                        @ killer_nik: you spoke about domination by alliance but you ve never played a battle...how can the other clans trust you?Happy Moose was just kiddin and fightin spirit is not enough for others to give you troops to do so...oh and you deleted your profile,good job m8....lol
                                        Reply To This
                                        • No replies

                                          RE: Domination by alliance

                                          by (deleted profile) at 8/11/2008 2:45 PM
                                          no we have, and my idiot friend deleted it :( i cant blame him for knowing my mothers maiden name, guess i gotta start back at the bottom
                                          Reply To This
                                      • Replies: 3

                                        RE: Domination by alliance

                                        by SunTzuSunTzu (67 posts) at 8/12/2008 6:51 PM
                                        Rave you might want to check the historic, you might find your comment obsoleted.
                                        Reply To This
                                        • Replies: 2

                                          RE: Domination by alliance

                                          by (deleted profile) at 8/13/2008 3:03 AM
                                          well no1 listened to me when i said this would happen, 23,000,000 plinks down the drain.. apparently its based on the fact that there were only 2 commanders but dont you think that with the big alliance you would have won SF? o well cant say i didn't tell you so,
                                          Reply To This
                                          • Replies: 1

                                            RE: Domination by alliance

                                            by DougleDougle (890 posts, Moderator) at 11/10/2008 6:38 PM
                                            how did i manage to miss this whole thread?

                                            oh i remember i was on holiday :P

                                            shame k.nik as left he ws always a laugh :(


                                            shame nif didnt take part in last battle

                                            would of been fun to see what happened, i guess SF crippled them more than we realised
                                            --
                                            Reply To This

Navigation links:

Wait...