Thank you good fellow

even the odds? they had a 6 country lead, had they let SoL take the FS they would have lost what 3? maybe 4? so they would still have had a country lead, and since they claim they knew a FS was coming they could have just been on high alert and been ready for that FS and attempted to wall, probably leaving SoL with even less kills, Still giving M4D a country lead.

The only reason stones jumped in because you know i believe they have a FDP with SoL, and since SoL got attacked first stones responded to defend their allies, Had SoL took the FS, stones would have had no reason to come to the defense, giving M4D once again the country/turn advantage...

Anyway this has been a disappointment of a war, lets see what happens next set.

I want to thank you guys for killing me so often, so that I was in a NW range to kill off one of your tricky OCs with really low NW. I could not have done it without you. Now the Tag-kill is certain.

That's an interesting hypothetical.
Stones had opportunity to aid SoL either way though, as they had not pacted M4D despite Leto trying to reach out to both farmer and bru.
Which makes it likely that even if SoL had FS'd M4D, that Stones also would have come to the party.

That being the case, as M4D, knowing that you're going to get hit, lose countries, then get hit again, and lose more countries, giving up a numbers advantage, and also being at an experience disadvantage, why would you NOT take the opportunity to FS and try to mitigate some of it?

Didn't realise you'd gone to SoL Aca!

Yes - as MD slowly disappeared, we had some tight connections with SoL. I still had some ties to PDM but you and Pallet seemed to retire so I went with SoL after giving up for a while.

I don't disagree with you, since my theory never came to fruition, and only the one you just listed did, I guess we will never know, but had it have been me leading warchats for M4D I would have 100% not done what they did with the tanks, personally I think that was their biggest mistake which in my own opinion set them back more than taking the FS from SoL, We can theorize and put as many spins on this as we like but the key fact here as you stated, they were at a huge experience disadvantage, here's to hoping they have learned something this round in regards to current warring strategies and techniques and prove to be a better foe next round.

Your coalition (SOL, Stones, and Mercs) has done a great job and y'all are still the top dogs on the server, for the time being. You learn from doing and you have to do in order to figuring out things. Watching y'all wall and do your runs, even if being on the receiving side of them, it's impressive.

There's no need to sugarcoat anything, we are where we are. In recent days, we have added a warbot that we are testing and that will add more parity. It is what it is, we are proud men and women and when some BS happens, expect a response. I'll take full responsibility and accountability for what we have done.

Our site, Earthempires.net is still being created. We look forward to recruiting, training and developing our returning vets. We look forward to the breaking the mold that has steadily decreased the games membership and be the best that we can be.

Oh, so the same people are already planning to hit us next round?

I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you.

I'm pretty sure you guys were planning to war us anyway. Don't act like this isn't a mutual thing, lol

We were merely defending ourselves. We got FSed with nukes and ABs

Coalie, if you made up stories as good as you walled, this would be one hell of a story.

You wouldn't have been FSed by anything had you stayed in your own clan. This would be an entirely different story.
Do try to keep up.

Empy, I never dropped tag once at all this set. On paper, all I see is a failed FS by m4d on SoL. I’m not sure what the circumstances are that led to that but facts are SOL are the defenders. Also, I never swapped tags (there you go launching false accusations and fake propaganda again).

Do try to keep up

Yea... Coalie's been in SoL this whole set.

Lets summarise why I personally think M4D will be a foe next set and not an ally, and this is once again my own opinion, being one of the tag jumpers into SoL, I think I perfectly understand what Jouster means by this, In case you still don't understand, I'm pretty sure it means WAR. So Maybe instead of trying to get smart and sarcastic with an Englishman you may want to focus your energies on getting good before you get slaughtered again.

Drow can we get another update?

SOL has been really impressive this set, they are legit terrifying. Well done guys!

We did retire, yes.
Pallet moved to Thailand and got himself married too lol

UPDATE:

M4D: 4218 hits, 11 kills, 383 HPK

SOL: 7733 hits, 28 kills, 276 HPK, 2927 defends, 5 deaths, 585 HPD
Stones: 1404 hits, 2 kills, 702 HPK, 1291 defends, 6 deaths, 215 HPK

Combined SoL/Stones: 9137 hits, 30 kills, 305 HPK

Do we know the MERCs countries that tagged over? I'd be interested to see if there is any difference in the HPD between native SOLers and MERCs.

That's some scary numbers though.

Tag kill completed. Thanks M4D for the battle, even if it was one sided.

Thanks Academus.

Empy,

I hope to see that you are humbled by this and maybe treat us in a more respectful manner next time. Just because we’re smaller doesn’t mean we’re weak.

Coalie. I never disrespected anyone. I called out the facts. Members jumped. SOL was storing. Someone told us the FS was coming. We pre-empted the intel. We developed tools RT. We learned the new state of war in Real Time. And we're progressing daily and again, thank everyone for the exciting first set. The server was not boring this set, and we are excited for the future.

Period. That's the facts jack.

In terms of MKR. Dark, Freedom, Alpha, Beta all tag team farmed us and retalled retals. We did what we could while getting gangbanged. Even then it seems friendly and we will come back a little more prepared.

k

This was just the start of something beautiful

Basically what's happening: https://i.imgflip.com/8s44aw.jpg

You know... Sui made that thread about M4D having street cred and not being a bunch of whiney baby's.


Hmmm...

Give me an hour or two, and yeah, I can give you the numbers on the mercs countries

But TAN isn't in M4D so...





**HRH Princess Tisya**

We all said thank you. How is that whining?

Make sure you pay close attention too when you do it. Just incase for future trolling on us and steeping out of bounds to push our clan leader around.

You're not. Tan is. For some weird reason, considering M4D and PDM are different clans. It's really odd behavior, honestly.

What am I whining about exactly, ButtHole? XD

Ohhh... I see. You're one of those that hides in clans the preach being nice and kind to others in this community, then you call me a Butthole. Well done, sir.



The whining is the post you made, silly. Did you not see the image you linked whining about people joining SoL?

You're right, my apologies for the insult.

I wasn't whining, I was poking fun at all the tag jumpers using a meme. But it sounds like you're whining about whining? Did I get that right?

If you think me labeling your action is whining, then I suppose I can't argue with you.

Others may have different opinions though.


I appreciate the apology, have a great day.

interesting....

I have never attempted to push DD around dude.
I have been honest with him about what is, effectively fluffty behaviours.

Like I said to him directly, and I'll say it publicly, if it was my alliance it was done to, I would be PISSED, because it is effectively pacting in bad faith.

Breaking down the reason why I personally would see it as effectively pacting in bad faith: "Yes, we will sign a pact not to fight you. But, conveniently, half our tag is going to switch to this other tag that *IS* planning to fight you, and we will even tell you straight up that that's exactly what they are doing".

That's not good faith pacting dude, plain and simple.

You don't have to agree with me, you don't have to like that I'm saying it, but them's the facts.
And if, for argument's sake Paradigm countries had tagged over to M4D before war broke out, you'd have blown your top at us too.

I had enquiries when we tag shifted as it was about whether we were trying to quote "avoid pacts" at the time, which I actively followed up on to make sure that everyone knew we were honouring pacts as they stood, and re signing them as neccessary for those leaders who needed that.

If that's not honest and square dealing, I don't know what is.

I like you dude, but I'll still call a spade a spade at the end of the day.

I still have no idea why Mercs made a pact with M4D in the first place. That is DD's only mistake! For that, DD gets spanked.

Drow - do you think maybe it was bad faith pacting by M4D to attempt to get a pact with Mercs, but not aggressively pursue a pact with SoL, a close ally?




As an outsider looking in, and based on the initial declarations of M4D at the beginning of this set, it seems as if their goal this set was to divide and conquer. As if having 30+ members wasn't enough, they also wanted to split up alliances and coalitions, by only pacting some of them.




I said it at the beginning of the set, and I don't see any evidence to the contrary. M4D was intending on warring smaller tags that they thought they could easily handle. I predicted Stone and Rage, but SoL was definitely an option too.

If they didn't want to war Stones/Rage/SoL, why didn't they also pact those alliances?


In other words, I think the blame has to be placed on the alliance who didn't pact all the other alliances, if they didn't want to fight.

BH and Drow: I think partially this can be explained due to how politics and pacting have changed over the years (decades??). In the old days, most groups did not pact everyone. They might leave it open to their players grabbing good targets, knowing it could escalate, but the war groups almost never pacted out - they were looking for a war, and if you did not get that pact, you were uneasy most of the set.

Over the years, netters in particular tried to be very diplomatic and pact out as many as they could. In the current state, with the reduced server counts and bots, people have a lot more reason to pact because there's no grabbing benefits and I'd argue that wars where both sides are ready is a lot more entertaining and prevents further loss of players. Of course, there are certainly grudge wars - we've seen some recently but they have always been around, including in the old days where you would finally pact your enemy after three sets and then their ally would war you for another three sets.

All that said, I think M4D was looking to add a little bit more spice into the server, but probably didn't have any specific plans initially. [NB: I'm not privy to any knowledge about M4D at all, and may have an optimistic view of their goals.] Similarly, SoL is probably always interested in a war, and so kept that option open. I could even imagine that with M4D being the new largest tag all of a sudden that some of the war clans wanted to see "what they're made of" so to speak - we see that commonly on other servers. Tag protection is not given, it's earned, for a new group.

Given M4D's large size, and the fact that there hasn't been a real war recently (mostly griefers), probably a lot of people were interested - and it looks like SoL and co had fairly even numbers at the start (probably 2 less?). If Mercs was really keen on breaking a pact or bullying M4D, they could have tagged over more than 7 (they still have 8). I think people just wanted a good fight, and given the recent expertise on the SoL side, they probably could've gone in a little less heavy, but if they were 7 less in numbers and lost, people probably wouldn't remember that they gave up an advantage, just that they lost (and then a war would likely happen the next set with more numbers).

TL;DR: This is all just musings, but mostly to say that I think most probably took this as it was meant to be - in the spirit of the game, enjoying the side of war that both sides were open to (based on forum posts and choice in pacts). It seemed like a number of people had fun (and certainly learned a lot on the M4D side) but that some vets aren't cut out for war anymore (I know I'm not). It'll be interesting if they pact out next set or both want to try again with the new knowledge gained from this set. For whatever reason, best of 3 sets is a common occurrence.

UPDATE:

M4D: 5579 hits, 16 kills, 349 HPK

SoL: 9247 hits, 32 kills, 289 HPK, 3214 defends, 5 deaths, 643 HPD
Stones: 2003 hits, 3 kills, 668 HPK, 2365 defends, 11 deaths, 215 HPD

Combined: 11250 hits, 35 kills, 321 HPK

Ex Mercs countries: 2774 hits
(can't pull kills for those countries from Boxcar easily, sorry!)

to my knowledge, M4D DID attempt to pact SoL, and got no response.
can't pact someone who won't talk to you.

Drow - I don't think that's accurate. I could be wrong though.


I'd love to hear from someone in leadership at M4D -

Did you all send pact requests to Stones, Rage, SoL, etc? In other words, did you try to pact all alliances. Or did you purposefully not send pact requests at the beginning of the set to some alliances, so that you'd have war opportunities or land grab targets?

M4D is pacted to Rage this set. Rage is a SoF tag. I don’t know why you mention it.

I didn't know that, Xyle.


In this thread: https://www.earthempires.com/...intent-52609?t=1716241388

SJ announced that PDM, Mercs, EVO were pacted. No one else. He then threatened that all non-pacted countries would be subject to land grabs by M4D.


It's interesting to know there were other pacts that were not announced. I'm wondering if SoF was the only alliance not pacted now, and if that was by design?

I think you think too much BH. And I'm not saying that in a mean way cause I don't know you.

OK I guess? lol

Why would you be pissed? Aren’t you neutral? Are you going to come push DD, the leader of Mercs around everytime he makes a decision you don’t agree with? Especially if it’s something that doesn’t even involve your clan? We’re not gonna let you push Dark Demon around. I’ve seen the screenshots, we’ve all seen it and we are all conclusive in our opinion on what happened.

I mean... I kinda feel like this is evidence of my 'drow/pdm isn't actually neutral' comment.

Why do they care about a war with a clan that isn't theirs? Unless they aren't actually as neutral as they say.

Look, I think we all know there are some in PDM who want war next set. Plenty of info gets leaked. I just don't know if those people have enough pull within the clan to bring PDM into war.

I guess we will find out.