mmm, now reach a bit lower...

don't be shy

Yes, Sage, that was the game I was reffering to, as it is the only one that you and I have played in and you guys unsuccessfully gb'd me.

Yeah, I am aware your about to win your 1st 100 point game, congrats. Granted having Grothard has your 1st opponent was very fortunate compared to some of the other players in there. And Big IMO made a mistake for making such a long NAP. But that's for him to debate whether it was smart or not. But a win is a win.

Gutbug, don't confuse my confidence with arrogance, but even still, in this whole thread, I have not been praising mine own abilities so much that they have dominated the topic. I assume your reffering to my statement about the Tyler/Sage gang bang that I was winning. There was no arrogance there, simply a statement of fact for that game. So it would appear your the only jackhole trying to make this discussion something that it is not about.

And I can put you in whatever Tier, I believe you are as a clan. Does that mean I am right? not necessarily. Do I think your better then Circus, yeah. But in my classification there is 3 made tiers. You guys may be the top of my third tier classification, but imo, still there.

I put Crusaders as a 2nd tier team, because of how tough they played us. It was the funnest game I have had in the tourney, 2nd funnest clan game I have personally been in (#1 being the AAA game where me and Hll were locked up in a 1v1 situation.) I think that the Crusaders definatly have enough individual and especially team talent that they could beat AAA and IJA on any given game.

I guess when if you really want to improve in my fictional ratings is beat Crusaders, or see if you can have a long fought game with FSA, or BOS (with more of their 1st string). Either way, regardless if you win or lose, hopefully, both sides will increase in skill,

I have to agree that Sage and CoC that Cro's evaluation is slightly biased, but entitled to his opinion.

However, I think CoC's skills here are being under rated. They have proved, in our current match, NOT to be push-overs. Sage and Tal defended my (and Ultima's) assault skillfully. And even though we seem to have cardfan's castle targeted as the next to fly AAA colors...at one point, I believe LOD was under extreme pressure from him and killer. CTD and ector have had a one on one contest..with CTD enjoying more success.

The 'skill' and 'upper level' that is being attributed to FSA and BoS and ANY successful clan is weighted with the availability of their players to simply be on line and in the game. ANY clan can defeat another, even if they are less skilled, IF they have the ability to be 'in the game' more often than their enemy.

As long as clan matches are played in the 12 hour turn games, this will continue to be true. To truly have 'bragging' rights as being the best...clan matches will need to be fought in the 24 hour turn games. Then, the so called 'skill' resulting from being more active will be neutralized and true 'gameplay' skill will surface.

Last Edited : Wednesday, 22 September 2004 - 00:08

yeah perhaps, my perception is biased, partially due to limited game contact with COC, but then again, they are 4-2 soon to be 4-3 for their clan game record. They have beaten people they were expected to beat, and lost to those who are in a higher tier classification. So it would seem to me, that they need to beat one of the Tier 2 teams or greater to get some more Tier love

I have to disagree that playing in 24 hour games, is where the most skill is displayed. I know Sugar and others tend to play in those, which is fine. But The vast majority of players are able to get to their computers at least twice during a 12 hr period. And with a few exceptions, this is about all you need to compete in a 12 hour game, though advantages can arise if a battle is tight. The faster the games such as 8 or 6 hr games, yes, those are not easy to always get in to do your turns, and it does benefit those who are available all the time. But generally people who join those... are available all the time.

12 hr games is where the most skill is displayed. Just means old man Sugar can't take his 16 hr naps

Haven't seen any 16 hour naps for a long time.

But I think you are totally wrong in stating that 12 hour turns are best to demonstrate 'skill'. The longer the turn, the lesser the impact of not being on line and in the game...the shorter the turn works in opposite. That's a simple fact that can't be denied.

During an engagement (in a 12 hour turn game), give two players the same troops and equal terms...one that gets in the game (on line) 3 or more times during the turn will certainly win out against the other player that only gets in 2 or less times.

Many of us (including you and I), like to think our success has been acquired by being more 'skillful'...and it has to some extent, however, a greater impact on our success is simply a result of being 'active'.

Yes sugar now go to sleep and stop killing my troops!

You know, I chuckled about this thread at first, then the ego poked my brain a bit, so I find I must now respond. Yes, the CoC did win the campaign versus The Circus. I for one, however, hardly feel that I was "trounced" and only my bullheaded nature combined with a very bad day brought about my quitting the campaign at the end, else I would have gladly faced the four of you at my doorsteps (as I recall, ^ector did add a few openings to my castle, darn him <grin> ). I was the last castle, having withstood an ongoing attack from ^ector from Turn 2. The Circus made some strategic errors (from which we shall learn), and did not act quickly enough when we determined your strategy. Still, it took you long enough to remove two of our players that you risked losing the upper hand. I still chuckle about how long it took Sage to remove Klavert from the game. Oh, well, it's the outcome that counts.

Sure, we lost. It sucks, but I hardly feel the need to go around showing my testicles just to prove I'm a man. I do take issue, however, when someone claims to have removed them. So on the record, I don't speak for The Circus, but I do speak for myself when I say that a little more respect needs to be displayed when you go around bragging about your victories. When I see this thread combined with the "Battle Clan" thread, I begin to worry if someone is feeling a bit insecure. Or a clan of someones.

[checks to make sure his testicles are still intact]

Also for the record, I think The Crusaders ARE better than the CoC, much as they ARE better than The Circus. For now. I have no problem accepting that The Circus is not currently at the same level of AAA, BoS, FSA, IJA or The Crusaders, and I do not regret joining this clan and declining the invites I received from some in that list. Maybe we will get to the same level, maybe the CoC will get there. I hardly feel the need to grouse about someone ranking my clan lower until then. I do feel the need to suggest that words like 'trounced' and 'slaughtered' and the ilk be replaced by simple descriptors like 'won'.

Finally, I agree with sugar's last point (which is a distant cousin of a certain clan's point as pertains to "Top Battle Clan"). This campaign tourney, well intentioned as it was, measured getting five folks online as frequently as possible. Even my clan recognized that this was crucial, early in the tourney. Hold a clan tourney with 24 hour games, and add Req's expressed desire of ONE login during each Turn, and I guarantee that results would be far different than they are now.

Grump, I may have never taken Klaverts castle, but he was out of the game by turn 10 or 15. Maybe sooner, I don't know...I do know that he was the first one out of the game (in all ways that matter, not technically).

And I'm sorry that we've had to step all over Circus's ego in this thread...I respect you guys, and that wasn't my intention. I was just trying to make a point. I apologize.

I for one would love to have 24 hr clan wars it really sucks being less active than your opponents i had to come home early from work just to save a few stacks of my troops

[gives Sage a big hug and whispers in his ear]

I love ya, man. Mostly 'cause it's my birt... it's a marginally happy day for me. And I do appreciate the apology.

so thats why...

Any who, Gutter I'm sure the COC could beat WAR. But then again we (WAR) are giving more hell to the crusaders than them us, or so I'm told. Also note that WAR has plaied very few clan games, and they have taken on the bigger clans before they were ready.

Basicly we all should remember

Judge not, least you be judged.

"The reason Req as a battle latter, is for those who are not able to to play the FULL game well, they have something they can fall back on to feel good about themselves It's like playing Minature Golf to Real Golf." - Crovax

Keep in mind what I am saying is from the perpspective of a good campaigner become battler.

Sorry Cro but you have that wrong. As far as the battle portion of the campaign goes, battle games are harder than campaign games. If you make an error in a campaign game, you can log in later and make another move to minimize or negate the damage that will occur from the mistake. A mistake in a battle, becomes an opportunity that your opponent gets to take immediate advantage of. You don't get to sit for a few hours and build up movement points and then move your unit back to correct the mistake, all the while hoping your opponent doesn't log back in. Instead your opponent gets their turn and the damage is done.

I would also like to make a point that battles actually help to improve your game. My campaign combat has greatly improved. I still take some chances that don't always pan out, just ask sugar. But on the whole when I stick to playing by the book defense I can kill alot of enemy troops. I have developed a much better understanding of defense since I started battling, and improved my offense ability by probably 100%. My offense really sucked.

Battles are also a good way to test troop combinations, to see if they are something you would like to use in a campaign.

I would even say that it is easier for a campaigner to switch over to battles as the combat rule system changes are minimal. But a player who has been a battler would have a slightly harder time switching over to campaigns. It would take a little getting used to the fact that you don't have to wait until next turn to move your troops if you have made a mistake. Then you also have the problem of having to develop building strats. An entirely new aspect to a battler.

There may be some good campaigners who ignore battles, and some good battlers who ignore campaigns. But I think if you look at the levels most good players actually play in both.

Ghengis, have I told you lately that I love you?

It makes me SO happy to have a campaigner supporting battles!

Grump, sorry for using that loaded word. It was more of an attempt to prove a point, I mean no disrespect. I'm not trying to wave my ***** around and try and prove its bigger than anyone else's, I just have a problem with Cro's "confidence", as he puts it.

And I guess I wouldn't really mind being put in this "tier." Its just that it seems Cro has an air about his writing that what he speaks his truth. And I guess this is what I mistook for "arrogance."

Either way, I would rather not have the clans so brutally compared with each other anyway. I realize I'm guilty of that, but that was because Cro got me riled up in that manner. Why can't we all just play the game, and stop waving our *****s at each other?

Crovax: "They have beaten people they were expected to beat, and lost to those who are in a higher tier classification."

Quick quiz. How does this apply to the CoC more so than to the Crusaders (so much so that you make the Crusaders to be in another tier altogether).

hint: it doesn't. We both have the same clan game record. Beat the ones we should, lost to the "top 4".

Card

[starts to give Gutter a hug... but checks to make sure his ***** is put away first... then gives Gutter a hug]

I love you, too, man.

I agree that we ought to be able play the game without being quite so brutal with each other. Mind you, I'm not saying we have to love each other, but we can be civil.

[thinks about his last outburst at the CoC at the end of the campaign]

OK, so we should strive to be civil. And stay off WOL if we're having a bad day.

For the record, I would have 1 less tier, and the top tier would be rather more crowded. After all, it's an approximate bracket, and not a precise measure (that's what placings in a tier/league are for ).

And the quality of clans has gone up heavily in recent years. There used to be only 3 really competitive clans, but I'd say now several are now the standard of the time of my opening campaigns