Clash of Alliances #2

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Mc_Johnsen wrote:

      The late game: Clash of Alliances #1 ended up like that: One team somewhere in Asia tookover all of Africa, Asia, Oceania and Africa bc the teams there were mostly inactive. Meanwhile in America, 30+day long trenchwar between North and South. I dont want to say that the trenchwar was that bad, it was more the fact that one team could take over the rest of the world so easily! [Less teams going inactive would be great]
      This is not entirely accurate. At first, only Central America and Oceania were empty. We were in South Africa. First we took care of North Africa team, which was not inactive, but their skills were not so great. After that (at that time one of our players became mostly inactive, he saw almost no action after that), we landed in middle east (which was not inactive, but was having a little distracting war with Europe, which was still active at that point). While we were taking their land, east Asia (which defeated team Siberia already) decided to take a piece of the prize, so they invaded rest of the middle east. At that point, they (who had two very active players) and us started a long big war (their leader had by far the biggest country and production), which lasted for some time which we eventually (not easy at all) won. At that point, I think the game was solved. Europe was inactive, we took it without any effort, so we went for Americas where two teams fought against each other. For all that time, North and South America were leading a war without results. It took us a lot of time just to get through remainings of Asia team and AI to move units to Alaska to cross into America. When it was clear that the old world was ours, North and South America made peace and decided to move together against us (it was unclear if that was against the rules, but we did not pursue the path of determining it). At that time, in my team, I was only really active player, while two others were online from time to time to move troops. I don't know about your team, however. When I crossed into Alaska, I did not stop for any moment and destroyed every unit you had there, both in air or on land while at the same time I destroyed a big part of your navy with few battleships and a big fleet of subs. South America at that time tried to invade west Africa but every unit that landed there was quickly destroyed (I even used one nuke bomber, just for fun). Next day, I heard that your team surrendered, and South America did the same soon after that.

      So, for those who don't like reading a lot of text, only real active battles that we fought were in old world, while Americas were just a quick sweep. It is true that some teams go inactive, officially or not, but that didn't affect that game too much compared to the way how we played against all teams we met. Your team also tried kept accusing us for breaking some of the rules which was a complete ignoranance, which really didn't do anything good for your reputation. My guess is that you just couldn't take the loss with dignity.

    • About the mistakes that maybe existed. I don't think it was a mistake, but if manual adding players to the game was an option, it would have saved us all from a lot of trouble. I suggested it to Xarus, but for some reason, he couldn't get the support to add player manually. Also, teams are not balanced, it is true. Perhaps a better teams can be made, just not sure how to make it. Central America for sure must not stay in present form.

    • Paramunac wrote:

      Jever Reloadet wrote:

      the battalion signed up. but i hope, it runs better than the last alliances clash and you will not do the same mistakes ^^.
      Some mistakes were made in first Clash of Alliances? Or you just can't get over the fact that your 5-player team surrendered to one enemy player after only few days of war because you were demolished on land, air and sea at the same time?
      first read, then answer.