with all due respect, you are an excellent player Avi, one of U2 , but only when you combine activity, commitment and actually playing the game.

Too many times now you performed this #man in the shadow who pulls the strings story"

it is not fair to the players who actually are playing and not juts having an ego trip as yourself.

You are top notch player, nobody denies it - but do it for your self, not for a bunch of wannabies, for whatever reason you are dong it.

I played against you before and i know that you will, for some reason stick to what ever it is in your mind that you pledged - pls, for god sake let them 2 fight it out on their own.

step back and focus on the next round

wth are you talking about?? in order to win a round, you need to put in some things that i am not willing to put anymore. does that mean that i can't play BD? does it mean that i can't support my friends? who are you to say that me joining as a UN member is more "honorable" then running a team on their side? since when it is only about 1 v 1?

idk when i played against you, but having good and trustworthy allies was always a key factor in every era i remember.

oh, and btw, running an alliance that supports another alliance, but keeps an army and holding a territory and fighting battles is much more honorable in my book then building a useless colony with the sole purpose of spamming. so really, you are the last one to preach...

cheers

I have a name. Of course BD is more than huge armies colliding into each other, when did I insinuate it was any different?

I find the tactic of begging people to give you aid and to give you help with nothing to gain from their side rather bland. If diplomacy insists that you battle the entire war for me as I sit back and do nothing and wait for the 10 relics to be in my possession, you have a point.. it is better strategy to some extent.

It's better strategy the same way that backstabbing is better strategy, but it's a short-term gain. Your credit as a player or person goes down the more repetitions of strategies like that. Also, I would assert a point that you also don't get better at the game out of it.

The more I see these tactics play out, the more my contempt builds up for the people who use these tactics. Luckily I have something to vent my contempt through coming up in April. I'm sure if we took a poll, the numbers would surprise you of the people who despise this 'hand dawn' mentality.

'Hand dawn' is what we term to be the most popular strategy at the current moment. You as an alliance ask, or practically beg people to join the server and to set up in some different continents. Sometimes you don't make it obvious that they're helping you. Then, when wars erupt, or relics come out, they pounce on whoever is your enemy, and grab the relics. Once the enemy is down (generally at max 2 alliances), they hand the relics over to the team that asked, and the round ends. Pre-determined rounds are at the height of stupidity, and I'd love to see you guys try it on Champ Era. LION and POTC are those alliances this round. Normally alliances who would have a stake at the win, but are shamelessly supporting another alliance for no personal gain. Then HaHa is just in the middle, fighting UN for the hell of it.

HaHa's mentality is the only one I agree with. They said that they would fight UN, no matter who they support, and I am constantly seeing them coordinate big attacks on UN. Kudos to you, following your word.

However, we have UN hiding behind Mother LION's skirt, and BYZ not being able to hide behind POTC because they're too inactive. Glad they're good enough on their own. The main problem I have is ego. You take a look at these posts here and it's laughable what UN is saying. Face it UN, BYZ beat the living crap out of you, and was about to do some more beat-down but LION intervened. I'm curious though LION, do you also cook their meals? Do you read them stories? I imagine this is what Aus looks like right now:



Don't worry children UN, maybe one day you'll be good enough to win your own era.

What's funny is I'm willing to bet this UN alliance, or at least most of them will be supporting the majority of LION members in their quest to win the Champ Era.

I guess zombies produce zombies which produce zombies.

Perhaps then Aus looks like this:



Oh well, have fun with your tactic while it lasts.

it does not really matter when but i was on the winning side and i know what you are capable of when you focus, Hawai for example has been one of your amusing scenarios.

Pls do not get defensive, it is unlike you, just let UN an BYZ have a good man fight without anyone doing the punches for them.
I think that is reasonable, don't you?

1. UN never begged Avi to build and help them.

2. There is something to be gained for LION, they will end rank 2, or at worst, rank 3.

3. The fact that there are players such as Avi that currently cannot be active enough to play serious doesn´t mean that they should leave BD altogether, if they make friends on BD and they wish to help those friends then they can go ahead and do it.

4. This "Hand Dawn" Strategy wasn´t used either as that would require other alliances not knowing that LION was on our side but LION emphasises from before the era even started that they are on UN side and BYZ, POTC, HaHa knew this before warring us.

sorry, but i don't know your name... and it felt strange to call you "lolowut".



Please bet, i'll take you on. LION as a team and me personally are not gonna be in the champ era (maybe as a helping hand again, who knows) because of the reason i typed in my previous post. i am not willing anymore to put what it takes to win an era in BD.



if you were on the winning side against me, then it could only mean 1 era. i wonder who you were, i thought that i knew tham all.

i'm not getting defensive, i just don't like being preached by someone who is at the moment using a colony as spammer while typing posts about how it is not ok to not play for the win.

My 2 cents:

Both sides have valid points. Betrayal is a strategy, but at the cost of your reputation. If no one trusts you, how can you betray them later? Constant betrayal is in itself, a counter productive strategy.

Now some people like to use moral's as a defense against this strategy. That's fine, I know I do. In my opinion, what you do when you THINK there is no consequence (for instance, saying "stop whinning, it's just a game") will show you someone's true character. How people act when they THINK there is no ramifications is a great testament to one's character (in my opinion). As I said before, I do not like betrayal. I treat those I like and dislike as I would in real life, not based on the fact that it's a game and I can get away with anonymity. But that's enough on my morality spiel.

Now as for asking friends to help you win the round. Sure, seems legit. Why not. The fact that they are WILLING to do so means something. Your diplomatic skills are above par. And of course it sucks for any alliance fighting them. It means you have to deal with multiple alliances, not one. But the same thing can be said about sub-empires. They are a pain in the butt, yes. They are hated amongst most players. They've been here since E1A1. If they are hated, why are they still here? Simple answer. It's effective. Actually, that's pretty much the answer to EVERYTHING we're discussing here. These things are done because they are effective. UN choose to use the sub-empire tactic because it's an effective strategy to buy time when the main alliance gets hurt and needs to rebuild. On top of it, they are using friends for a brother alliance to make their capability to rebuild even greater. How do you face something like this? Most effective way? A surprise attack. Best way to get the jump on an enemy? Betrayal when trusted. As I said though, best way to LOSE credibility is also betrayal though. So apparently the leadership of BYZ decided losing some credibility was the ONLY means to take down this giant sub-empire that also has countless allies on their side.

What does this all say at the end? Both sides are strategically capable from a leadership point of view. BYZ and UN are basing their strategy off of their perspective.

UN used diplomacy to gain nearly 5 continents worth of allies. And multiple subs in in some locations as well. Aussie (LION), Africa(UN), NA(UNUD), SA(UNSA), AA(UA/UB), Asia (Awe & DC). There are more, but I don't feel like looking up where each is. And it was pure luck that I knew the leader of UNUD and he kept neutral because of the fact that he trusts me after I lead and taught him in another round.

BYZ saw their enemy was a sub-empire with strong allies. How do you make a dent in that with less than half the colonies? Surprise attack. Sure, BYZ allies MAY have been stronger than UN's subs, but this is where quantity vs. quality kicks in. Quality is better, sure. But quantity can still overrun quality if there isn't enough resources to back it up.

So the way I see it. Both sides used LOGICAL and VALID strategies.

Anywho, I'm rambling.

I didnt say it was random. I said you'd have planned to attack certain key areas, and clear it off of red outposts in order to establish a way to get to our colonies. So you have UN pushing through NA, Lion and the rest pushing through EU and Africa, boxing us in Greenland. Just didnt think, you had very detailed plans like cutting a diagonal like Kenney had said, even though that was what happened.

lol unless people are in a position to make an educated opinion on "betrayel" here they should just leave it be

which means either DC or Awe will die if u win rofl
that should start a fire

and noobs .. please stop crying .. I tried it, but it's not helpful .. killing armies made me feel better
hope u do the same