List of alliances and regions:
- Knights Watch // @oceanhawk
- Gwardia Cesarska // @Defous
- Lethal Squad // @Minishu
- Red Baron Flying Circus // @Redd Baron
19 Aug 2016, 21:13
Clash of Alliances #2
We try to start a multi alliance battle. The idea is to get 10 allies on the world map for a ultimate team fight!
*the game will be postponed until further notice*
*under construction*
Rules:
- The use of GOLD is forbidden.
- The use of rockets is (undecided yet) (check polls)
- There's no limit of teams that can attack the same team.
- Players must enter the game during the first 48 hours, after these time his team will have 24 hours to replace the player that didn't join.
- No cooperation between the teams! (no shared map; no right of way; no NAP; no exchange of resources)
- Game language is English
- Respect you opponent, it's a game.
- 3000 gold and 1 week of HC(per member of the team)
Note:
¹) Randomized Choice: The signed allies will give tip for the last both dots from the exchange course between us dollar and euro at the noon of the next day. (Central European Time)
Team A says the course at next day is xx45
Team B says xx56
Team C says xx85
and so on. The team with the closest tip gets the first chance to choose their starting region!
Questions?
please ask!
Idea originally created by @Xarus
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
24 Replies
19 Aug 2016, 21:30
Count the Knights Watch down pls 
Was great game last time, looking forward to it
If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
-Friedrich von Haye
19 Aug 2016, 21:32
Added.oceanhawk wrote:
Count the Knights Watch down plsWas great game last time, looking forward to it
19 Aug 2016, 21:47
2. Gwardia Cesarska
19 Aug 2016, 21:54
Add us, Lethal Squad
19 Aug 2016, 21:55
Defous wrote:
2. Gwardia Cesarska
Both added.Minishu wrote:
Add us, Lethal Squad
19 Aug 2016, 23:02
Greetings from Serbian Eagles, winners of the first Clash of Alliances game. We will not be participating this time (reasons are both lack of time and interest and the fact that we proved ourselves already in this great competition), however, I must ask one question. First game was organized by @Xarus, and as far as I know, this was his idea and implementaion, so I wonder if he is involved this time, too, and if not, is he aware of this second game? I know that he had plans for continuation, so (even if its maybe not my job to do this) I hope this is not done without his knowledge or approval.
19 Aug 2016, 23:11
He's not involved at this moment. I know it's his idea and that's why i added this when i created this thread:Paramunac wrote:
First game was organized by @Xarus, and as far as I know, this was his idea and implementaion, so I wonder if he is involved this time, too, and if not, is he aware of this second game? I know that he had plans for continuation, so (even if its maybe not my job to do this) I hope this is not done without his knowledge or approval.
I don't know if he will get involved or not. I sent him a message a few days ago in skype but got no reply yet, seems he's on vacation or something. However all is the same, just changed the datenemuritor98_ wrote:
Idea originally created by @Xarus
26 Aug 2016, 13:59
#Changelog -
- Added a prize for the winner. 3000 gold and 1 week of HC per member of the team.
26 Aug 2016, 18:28
I like the concept, just dread the world map, those things take a long time to conquer. Any time limit?
26 Aug 2016, 18:42
Unless more alliances want a time limit, there's no time limit for nowRedd Baron wrote:
I like the concept, just dread the world map, those things take a long time to conquer. Any time limit?
6 Sept 2016, 19:50
any alliances willing to join?
6 Sept 2016, 22:03 (edited)
I will ask mine.
eta: They said yes. They wish to join.
12 Sept 2016, 20:36
the battalion signed up. but i hope, it runs better than the last alliances clash and you will not do the same mistakes 
.
12 Sept 2016, 20:44
nemuritor98_,
hello there,
My alliance and me participated in the Clash of Alliances #1 and I would like to share some experience I(we) made during the 1st World War. Because it seems like you are literally copying everything, faults included. Obviously its in all of our interest to get rid of the errors made in the Clash of Alliances #1!
1. The "map distribution": You dont have to be a strategic genuis to realize that certain teams have a horrible starting position! For example, Middle Amerika(2), whichever teams picks this knows already that its going to face 2 enemies: North and South America. The chances of winning such a war are almost 0. So Team Nr. 2 is already doomed to failure.
2. The joining process: Its actually harder than u think to get all the players to join the right team and the right country! Last time we had several tries and still werent flawless at the last try. You may want to rethink how you could get players play the right country and be in the right team! Simply telling them isnt enough, as we saw last time 
[For some reasons, Players just joined other teams/countries]
3. 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]
Mc_Johnsen
12 Sept 2016, 20:49
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?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
12 Sept 2016, 20:57
We probably surrendered to 1 Player because his army was way bigger than ours? And for some reasons, our airfleet bugged awayParamunac wrote:
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?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
We didnt get demolished on land air and sea, only at air because our airfleet disappeared. Which leads to our defeat on the ground to your 150-200 tactical bombers.
Btw, @nemuritor, you should post this game on the other servers as well (in case you want to get this full)
12 Sept 2016, 21:16
First of all, thanks for the feedback, @Mc_Johnsen, glad to have someone that cares to make it better.
Taking in count I haven't noticed these things,
the game will be postponed until further notice
I'll work into this and i'll try to provide a new organization around the map. Any suggestion by now?Mc_Johnsen wrote:
1. The "map distribution": You dont have to be a strategic genuis to realize that certain teams have a horrible starting position! For example, Middle Amerika(2), whichever teams picks this knows already that its going to face 2 enemies: North and South America. The chances of winning such a war are almost 0. So Team Nr. 2 is already doomed to failure.
I'll add all the players manually so the joining process won't be a problem.Mc_Johnsen wrote:
2. The joining process: Its actually harder than u think to get all the players to join the right team and the right country! Last time we had several tries and still werent flawless at the last try. You may want to rethink how you could get players play the right country and be in the right team! Simply telling them isnt enough, as we saw last time[For some reasons, Players just joined other teams/countries]
Maybe making it just invitational would be better? Not sure at all, there aren't many alliances but yeah, i understand the fact that there can be a lot of inactivity which can affect the game a lot.Mc_Johnsen wrote:
3. 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]
It can help, yes, but i must contact someone that talks in those languagesMc_Johnsen wrote:
Btw, @nemuritor, you should post this game on the other servers as well (in case you want to get this full
12 Sept 2016, 21:20
Name of the alliance?Redd Baron wrote:
I will ask mine.eta: They said yes. They wish to join.
which mistakes if i can ask?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
12 Sept 2016, 21:21
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.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]
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.
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
