Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Alliance analysis

  1. #1
    slinky snail's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Nov 2011
    Posts
    90

    Alliance analysis

    Actually, I know virtually nothing about the alliances but I do play the server so I reckon that is a good enough start

    =KGBS= (49 members)

    They have happily absorbed a few SWS member lately and so have attained the dizzy heights of no.1 alliance and are no.1 for attack and no.2 for defence. They also, excitingly, hold a WW. I really wasn't sure that anyone on this server would bother so this is an enthralling prospect. I wonder if anyone else will join them and nab a WW of their own. Oh, no, hang on, they are already snuggled up with the no, 3, 4 and 5 alliances so there isn't a lot of potential opposition out there.

    This is mostly a NE alliance but they have always had a few just over the border in the NW. (Why on earth haven't Flock got rid of those ones?) They now also have some in the SE and SW. Have they spread themselves too thin I wonder? Probably not in view of their confeds.

    Sadly, as far as I know, none of them say anything on the forum now Spirit has deleted.

    FLOCK (43 members)

    Weirdly this lot don't seem to have a con-fed with anyone. A very odd choice if you ask me. I have heard that they and =KGBS= have been having a really lovely time playing all sorts of games against each other. That may explain why they are no.2 for attack and no. 1 for defence. That certainly makes it look as if they and =KGBS= may be quite evenly matched.

    This is a NW alliance with a few member lurking over the border in the SW. They also seem to be the most vocal on the forum. I feel other alliances should really try and join in, then you wouldn't end up with terrible alliance analysis like this one!

    So, will Flock stick to their guns and remain anti-WW or will they find it impossible to resist the attraction of holding a WW? Time will tell.

    BLACK (27 members)

    Another alliance with confeds and it won't surprise you to hear that these are with the no1, 4 and 5 alliances. I am a bit disappointed that these lot like confeds too. As far as I can see they have been simming along happily and I expect them to have some nice troop numbers hidden away. Currently ranked no.4 for both attack and defence but even with just 27 I am hoping to see them scamper into third place for attack.

    They are a tidy SE alliance and ones to watch I think, away from the =KGBS=/Flock excitement.

    =SWS= (17 members)

    This is the incredible shrinking alliance. The banning of a major player in their alliance seems to have had a major impact on them and they have become pretty quiet since then. Admittedly some have decamped to =KGBS= and others have deleted (I don't blame them for this, they are the prime example but this really is the amazing shrinking server). There have been some good attacks from this lot so I would like to see them spring back from the depths of the despair. Currently ranking no.3 for both attack and defence they definitely have the capability to do so.

    Um, a SW alliance, of course. But I think you probably guessed that! And confeds with the no.1 and no.3 alliances so they can feel comfy and protected I assume.

    Deja_vu (8 members)

    Really an 8 person alliance in 5th place. What is the world coming to? Confeds with the no.1 and no.3 alliance but for some reason they and =SWS= haven't got one. I wonder why. Maybe just to add a hint of mystery to the server. These hardy little souls are no.5 for attack and no.7 for defence so either they don't defend much or no one really bothers attacking them. I have no idea which. (You didn't think I spoke to the alliances did you?)

    They seem to be a SE alliance, peacefully co-existing with BLACK although they do totter over the border into the NE and NW. On the plus side, no one in this alliance has fewer than 10 villages so they really are managing quite nicely.

    ALAMUT (9 members)

    Oh good grief, this lot are spread far and wide, only have 2 players with more than 5 villages and really make me want to cry that I have to even try and talk about them.

    No.8 ranking for attack and no. 9 for defence - with all those 1 village accounts not really a surprise. They seem to be in the NE, SE and SW - goodness knows how they even survive. They do have a confed with CADETS but I am not going to look at them as I am losing the will to live. Sorry CADETS. I can't even think of anything to say about ALAMUT but I do hope they are enjoying the server.

    KsrDeli (1 member)

    I think you can see why this is the last alliance I am going to look at. It has one member. That one member has 12 villages and is deep in the SW on the SE border. But how on earth is an alliance with one member the 7th ranked alliance. This domain needs strength in depth very very badly.

    Oh well, this one person alliance is ranked no.17 for attack and no.55 as an alliance for depth. I am not surprised when they have headed off to the back of beyond. Perhaps they are simming away a WW killer. I really hope so because there has to be some reason for their existence. Doesn't there?

    Sorry to anyone in an alliance I haven't covered but I just can't cope with doing more.

    This server needs to spice itself up a bit. Anyone else fancy a WW so it isn't just =KGBS= versus the natars?

    I am off to cry quietly in a corner!
    Last edited by slinky snail; 23rd April 2015 at 06:02 AM.

  2. #2
    Meme's Avatar
    Join Date
    8 Jan 2011
    Location
    England
    Posts
    119

    Re: Alliance analysis

    Oh my word, you must have been bored today! Lovely analysis, would be good to hear some views from alliance members
    Quote Originally Posted by herc View Post
    But this is uk4, who can impress me?
    Meme for totally messing up the NW, a bloody good job she did at that too!

  3. #3
    slinky snail's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Nov 2011
    Posts
    90

    Re: Alliance analysis

    Possibly slightly bored

    It is a good job I didn't look at the alliance top ten for the week when I did it though. Six alliances have robbed anything and only six have attacked. I have never seen that before this far into the week.

    I really do need to go and cry about the state of the server!

  4. #4
    howyoudoinau's Avatar
    Join Date
    6 Oct 2010
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    131

    Re: Alliance analysis

    Its not just this server...all au servers for a while now have been going this way. But i must admit that this is the worse one i have played on.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    21 Oct 2011
    Posts
    28

    Re: Alliance analysis

    Ive been playing Trav for something over 5 years now and I have never played a server where everyone metas up to hold a single WW. Or for that matter where 4 of the top 5 alliances are so scared of the remaining one that they all ally together. Kind of pathetic really.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    25 Oct 2014
    Posts
    41

    Re: Alliance analysis

    This is why I stopped playing. A server building one WW against the natars... lol

    Australians, you truly are wimps!

Similar Threads

  1. Alliance Analysis 12-03-12
    By Rosengaard in forum Server 4 Old Archives
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 13th March 2012, 05:44 PM
  2. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 23rd June 2011, 12:32 PM
  3. Alliance Analysis
    By John Smith in forum Server 1 Old Archives
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 18th October 2010, 08:43 PM
  4. Alliance Analysis Wk 3
    By John Smith in forum Server 1 Old Archives
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 15th July 2009, 11:53 AM
  5. Alliance Analysis
    By Darklands in forum Server 1 Old Archives
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 8th July 2009, 03:19 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •