Players that Hit and Run usually do it near to their Homebase... and therefore will most likely to strike the same cities around his base time after time.

So what I am suggesting here is to have a % of handicap...

if the player attacks the same city for the second time... 200 militia will be added to the defending city... and it keeps on increasing on the 3x..4x

something like this..

1x attack = 100 defending militia
2x attack = 200 defending militia
3x attack = 400 defending militia
4x attack = 800 defending militia
5x attack = 1600 defending militia

or alternatively, just increase the defender's odds....

depending which is easier to code...

wat se jy???

wat se jy??? (What you say?)

I understand what you mean Ronnie, in fact I agree to an extent. However, the problem with your plan comes when two or more enemy alliance members have HBs close to cities. In the example you give, it would mean that cities couldn't be attacked by the same player over and over, seeing as alliances often resort to tactics resembling hit and run even if it's not the same as such. In fact, eventually it could reach a point where two alliances fighting each other would be financially impossible due to the increasing stakes.

I completely agree with your overall point, however I'm not sure there is a solution for the problem. I don't have a problem with hit and runs, I actually see this as a part of the game that has a right to exist, but that there should be a defense against.

The only solution to hit and runs in my opinion is to reinstate the Army Interception feature, which Prophet has confirmed will be reintroduced at some point in the future.

how about if u stay in the city for 24hrs... it will be reset to zero ?

how about if u stay in the city for 24hrs... it will be reset to zero ?

That's a good point Ronnie. If you hold the city for 24 hours, or if it's taken off you within 24 hours, your "I attacked city X counter" was reset to zero as you say then your idea would probably work.

Note: I'm pretty drunk so I may have missed a problem with this plan haha.

Et tu brute? Vodca and crangrape bad. Maybe I'll attack starchy.

nice idea!

the game doesnt need so much hit-run,
we need code to prevent the unwanted hit-run.

Et tu brute? Vodca and crangrape bad. Maybe I'll attack starchy.
Why do I somehow always get brought into it? :p

Why do I somehow always get brought into it? :p

Starchy, somehow you picked up on this mention of your name, but you missed it on another thread where your "massage" services were offered as a persuading factor by JW! Seriously man, get your priorities straight here.......and this last sentence could be meant in more than one way haha.

nice idea!

the game doesnt need so much hit-run,
we need code to prevent the unwanted hit-run.

unwanted by some. I consider hit and run a strategy, and it can be an effective one...but the idea is a valid one. We'll put it on the list.

Note: I'm pretty drunk so I may have missed a problem with this plan haha.

I am going for a drink now too....;drunk

This will not eliminate Hit and Run... but make things for difficult.
Example if a city is always hit by the same robbers... they will build up their defence right...

Hit and run is a valid strategy and should not be punished, just because some people are scared about losing a city. Losing a city happens, get over it. Why would we be implementing something to discourage attacking in a WAR game?

If you want to discourage hit and runs then just stay online 24/7 or defend your city properly instead of a couple hundred soldiers. Hit and runs keep people honest in city defense.

If someone wants to build up a super army by attacking over and over again and gain massive experience so be it. Perhaps the reason for that tactic is to use that army to attack a resource city which is usually heavily defended.

Plus it is fun to annoy people with the hit and run, which could cause a player to go into a money burning blind rage of attacking, thus possibly achieving another goal of the hit and run. If you cause your opponent to go bankrupt or near bankrupt then they are right for the picking and easily defeated.

This is a war game. There's no rules in war just temporary agreements which are meant to be broken in the future. Everyone knows this. Learn it and stop whining.:'(

Pestilence that doesnt take into account the chances of the recent rounds whereby holding cities with large numbers has been detrimental. Thus cities change hands very often and becomes extremely repetitive.

This is not to discourage attacking...
it is to discourage attacking but not owning...

and if you are using a MASSIVE army... why worry about those little militias...

If you want to be brutally honest, this game play type only can become repetitive especially after years of playing it. Even with all the new tweaks it is still the same point and click, wait...still waiting...waiting...finally I can attack!! Darn, I lost. Time to bank again for the next attack. A lot of the fun from the game comes from causing other people to drink unhealthy amounts of coffee to stay up and defend, lose numerous hours of sleep, and eventually develop a stomach ulcer from the constant worry of attack. But since this has now become GEPeace I think the army upgrading and nuking need to be tweaked a little. So...

Bayonet --> Dozen Red Roses
Carbine --> A Box of Heart Shaped Chocolates
Pistol --> Cupid's Bow and Arrow
Improved Armored Vests --> A Big Hug from Mom
Rifle --> Pat on the Back from Dad
Grenade Launcher --> Confetti Bazooka
Machine Gun --> Blowing Bubbles
Infared Laser Pointer --> Red Lipstick Kisses from Grandma
Chemical Agent Detector --> A Bowl of Chili
Thermal Weapon Sight --> Hot Cup of Chocolate Milk

And Nuclear Warheads --> Big Gum Drop

This is not to discourage attacking...
it is to discourage attacking but not owning...

and if you are using a MASSIVE army... why worry about those little militias...

Erroroneous!! Erroroneous on all accounts!! Honestly who cares if you don't own? How is a constant turnover in the owner of cities a bad thing? Hit and runs can allow for that city to have a new owner... maybe even a newb. Oh my the horror!! A newb possibly owning my city? But what if he doesn't give it back? Oh I really hope he doesn't want to battle me for a city. I know!! I'll PM him to death!! Eventually then he'll stop playing and I can get my city back.

+1 for pest's sentiments (welcome back)

I for one don't understand how adding militia would thwart hit and run, the hit and runner is attacking a city owner not the militia

you're right GB, it really is just even worse for the city owner. I understand hit and runners for their use of the tactic, but I personally see more fun in holding a city, and abandoners as being weak, but then again I'm no mongol

Do I like hit and running? No. Do I think it should be removed from the game or have code added to reduce it? Also no. It IS a tactic, and regardless of whether or not people like it it should stay in the game and not have any weighting done by the game. In my opinion, the only thing that should be fixed from the coder's perspective is the return of army interception. That'll balance things out better than any tweaking of a city's defense based on repeated attacks. Intercept will give a player the power to try to stop a hit and run, or ignore it, instead of the game deciding that a player has attacked something too much and alter ratios to make it harder.

That's just my $0.02

for Hit and Run, some like it .... some dun like it...
GB, it will be attacking the owner + the militia...

Although I suggest something that is not favouring it, I myself also use it....

I think that the militia should rise up if the city owner doesn't adequately defend the city

I think that the militia should rise up if the city owner doesn't adequately defend the city

yes~~!!!!...
a min nos of troops should be needed to defend the city and if the militias nos gets higher then the defending troops... they should revolt~!

does not necessary need to over throw the owner but at least cost some damage to the owner... troops lost and tax lost maybe~ ?

If we need to prevent hit and run, why don't we add a function that you cannpt abandon a city in 1 hour?

If we need to prevent hit and run, why don't we add a function that you cannpt abandon a city in 1 hour?
because then we would have to re-think the whole format for nuking a city or anyone with a big army would be helpless against nukes.

hit and runs is here to stay and one day you will accept it. It is part of the game just like city holding is part of the game, and is just like spies are part of the game. Luke has stated in on each thread about stopping hit and runs.
So some dont like people that hit and run, well I dont like people that sit in there cities all game doing nothing at all.
SO luke should bring in something that stops people sitting in there cities doing nothing then. how can we prevent boring people just sitting in there cities doing nothing lmfao

hit and runs is here to stay and one day you will accept it. It is part of the game just like city holding is part of the game, and is just like spies are part of the game. Luke has stated in on each thread about stopping hit and runs.
So some dont like people that hit and run, well I dont like people that sit in there cities all game doing nothing at all.
SO luke should bring in something that stops people sitting in there cities doing nothing then. how can we prevent boring people just sitting in there cities doing nothing lmfao

All out war is the only answer, if you aren't fighting someone then you deserve to be attacked, PTB used to be an enforcer of this, especially when you could upgrade city industry (which needs to come back), and AvP would love to uphold that credo this reset, perhaps once we stop these wanna be Weyland Yutani rebels we can get back to that part of our mission on your uncivilized planet.

If you don't like hit & runs play this game instead

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0IS-Vv6XKs

SO luke should bring in something that stops people sitting in there cities doing nothing then. how can we prevent boring people just sitting in there cities doing nothing lmfao

I am sorry HC But I completely disagree with you. 100%.

I have owned lots of cities and I have been city less both as part of a strategy.

When you have no cities you do not care if you go offline for days on end. When you have cities you play much much more. Sorry but that is how every player I have seen plays.
So I would think we should be trying to find ways to reward people for the time spent on the game and the time reading the ads... rather than only coming in once every few weeks and playing for a few hours then going away again. Maybe it as easy as making a city have a advantage for defenses. So if you want to to take it it is harder than holding it.. But to say that people who hold the cities and are therefore boring and on less is wrong. The game would be more of a game if everyone had to hold a city to have bank access and to jewel. There would be far more diplomacy and and far more attacking.

Double post , sorry.

Thus belongs elswhere too but here is what got me thinking.

Value. And game score.

You should get cumulative value for holding large cities over days. And negative value holding cities for less.

This should not be a stand alone so much. So that say an alliance that does no fighting at all can win, but it should be a factor. resource cities more so.

So for example (and why in this thread)...

A player (1) holds 50 cities for 10 days. He gets an arbitrary 500 pts
A player (2) hit and runs 50 cities and holds only 1 for more than a day gets -50 for running and 1 for holding. So ends with -49.

Or we could do it on value. you hold 100mill then it adds to your score say 1 pt per mill so after ten days same example (1) is at 1000 (2) is at -49.

Either way the name of the game is tactics and holding your ground not just leaving all the cities empty. And resource cities should be worth 5 or so of all other cities just because of their cost to hold.

http://roflrazzi.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/82f74d01-9e3d-4db7-8077-52e41833c05d.jpg

Double post , sorry.

Thus belongs elswhere too but here is what got me thinking.

Value. And game score.

You should get cumulative value for holding large cities over days. And negative value holding cities for less.

This should not be a stand alone so much. So that say an alliance that does no fighting at all can win, but it should be a factor. resource cities more so.

So for example (and why in this thread)...

A player (1) holds 50 cities for 10 days. He gets an arbitrary 500 pts
A player (2) hit and runs 50 cities and holds only 1 for more than a day gets -50 for running and 1 for holding. So ends with -49.

Or we could do it on value. you hold 100mill then it adds to your score say 1 pt per mill so after ten days same example (1) is at 1000 (2) is at -49.

Either way the name of the game is tactics and holding your ground not just leaving all the cities empty. And resource cities should be worth 5 or so of all other cities just because of their cost to hold.



ahhh all about how to make a big alliance get more for holding all the cities hey peon. And well i totally disagree with you on what you have said too.
This is a game of war, and in a game of war all people can play how they want and when they want.
This is a game full of alliances with one player in an alliance to an alliance with 60 plus in an allinace, so when you start giving away things to people that hold alot of cities what happens to the small players that dont hold a lot of cities or are unable to hold alot of cities.
Oh then there is the ones that fight all the time and yet dont hold many if any cities.
The big alliance dont need anything more given to them peon and they are the ones normally holding the most per person and on the least. So if your really interested in having people play more, then instead of giving greedy little boring people more credit for nothing, how about we BRING BACK SCORE sooner rather than later, that always shows the activity of each player.
The big alliances and people with loads of cities are the ones that normally dont log on every day or every second day. The ones that dont have alot and are in a small alliance they need to log on each day just to be sure what they do have is still there.


we dont need new stuff added, we need the old returned as soon as prophet can get it all organised, so be patient and when it can be done, i am sure it will be.
score, interception made the game more fun and stopped the whinning about hit and runs.


there is always going to be someone like you peon with loads of cities moaning about hit and runs, cos it means you have to check and watch your cities, but hey isnt that the whole point of the game.

Hc, I am not moaning. I just think people play more when they hold cities.

Hc, I am not moaning. I just think people play more when they hold cities.

I think they play more when they hold few or none, :) When you hold cities esp lots of them, they nap with all or have ceasefires, so they dont have a need to get on unless in war. which most of the time, they arent in war, both to busy saving to do anything.

people that dont hold have nothign to hold them back from attacking to get a city or randomly attack people just for the fun of war

but each to there own thoughts and options peon :)
we wont agree as our game play is different. You hold loads and i dont hold none.

People don't play more when they have cities, bring back score and you will see that. I used to love not having cities and just hit and running (not when it came to MY Karachi though :p)

Bring back, oh bring back, oh bring back the score system now

Luke, can you "Pretty, Pretty Please bring back score????" PLEEEEEEEAAAAAAASSSSSEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The old system was not great. I know hc feels otherwise but a game full of hit and run is just boring. I still think the game us about cities not about leaving cities.

the game has never been nor shall it ever be full of hit and runners, lets not get carried away now peon. Most people play to hold cities, like probably 98% of people play to hold cities.
I would never want to see a game full of hit and runners either. :)

I just think it should not get you any score. There is no strategy in making a big army hitting and abandoning cities till it is dead then going away for a few days. That to me should not be something you get score for. You should only get score when you fight for a city or an area and defend it against people.

The score system would have to entail benefits for both scenarios, you get points towards your score for killing troops (or experience value) whether you are defending or attacking your score still is affected by any battle. Peon I think that what you are looking for is easily seen when you compare players average Value throughout a round.

It's very clear that some players just want to hit and run, while some want to control an empire, it's like comparing Genghis Khan to Napoleon.

Having an attack/defend score as well as a total average value (for the round) score allows both types of players (and everyone in between) to see their own achievements

Well yes but I am saying the game is to take and hold cities, not to just waste armies.
So your ave value should be a part of that score. And not just the last week when people spend all their geos. You should be getting added score for holding cities all along.

I mean look at this...
14:36:21 - June 30th, 2010 The city of Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam was abandoned by madmike.
14:35:35 - June 30th, 2010 The city of Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam was attacked by madmike. 2 defending armies (15,575 troops) were killed in the battle. 27,734 attacking troops were killed. ronnielim lost the city.
14:19:34 - June 30th, 2010 The city of Ca Mau, Vietnam was abandoned by madmike.
14:19:10 - June 30th, 2010 The city of Ca Mau, Vietnam was attacked by madmike. 1 defending army (1,580 troops) was killed in the battle. 962 attacking troops were killed. ronnielim lost the city.
13:37:59 - June 30th, 2010 The city of Kota Bharu, Malaysia was abandoned by madmike.
13:37:02 - June 30th, 2010 The city of Kota Bharu, Malaysia was attacked by madmike. 1 defending army (1,745 troops) was killed in the battle. 1,308 attacking troops were killed. ronnielim lost the city.
13:01:03 - June 30th, 2010 The city of Pakxe, Laos was attacked by madmike. No defending army (7,366 troops) was killed in the battle. 11,856 attacking troops were killed. videwesley retained control of the city.
11:40:52 - June 30th, 2010 The city of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia was abandoned by madmike.
11:40:20 - June 30th, 2010 The city of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia was attacked by madmike. 1 defending army (4,562 troops) was killed in the battle. 3,577 attacking troops were killed. ronnielim lost the city.


Why should he get as much credit for hitting and running as the person who actually held the cities. If players want to just hit and run fine, but their scores should reflect they played a one sided game and should not equal the scores of people who played and did not just make one big army..
Other than a few times of scorched earth policy and the Romans at times, In history armies did not hit and run, they hit to take an area.

right so like I said, total average value FOR THE ROUND

K I just wanted to make my point clear that I think someone should get far more points for even taking a single city and holding it against all odd than just hitting and running.

Isnt it amazing how people can have a discussion with out a flame war on here? Just takes treating people as you would like to be treated.

I think score should be implemented to include troops killed and value. There could be an hourly cron which adds the number of experience points killed in the last hour, to the total value gained and still held at the end of that hour compared to the last. The total of this calculation would then be added to your score. If the numbers need to be kept managable, the total of this calculation could then be divided by x to give a smaller number.

For example:

In 1 hour, player X takes and holds 4 cities worth 5 million each, killing a total of 100,000 experience points. Total value gained in 1 hour = 20,000,000. So, 20,000,000 + 100,000 = 20,100,000 score points.

In 1 hour, player Y hits and runs 20 cities, holds no value, but kills 1,000,000 experience points. Total value gained in 1 hour = 0. So, 0 + 1,000,000 = 1,000,000 score points.

With this calculation, hit and runners would only be rewarded for the troops they killed as they don't hold value, yet people who attacked and held cities would get a multiplier effect. This means that attacking and holding cities is rewarded more highly than hitting and running cities, which I think is fair. I've never seen a hit and runner wait for 1 hour between attacks so it would make it difficult to abuse on a large scale.

I haven't thought this through completely, it's just a quick post, but to me this seems like a fair overall representation of rewarding player activity.

Well yes but I am saying the game is to take and hold cities, not to just waste armies.
So your ave value should be a part of that score. And not just the last week when people spend all their geos. You should be getting added score for holding cities all along.

I mean look at this...
14:36:21 - June 30th, 2010 The city of Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam was abandoned by madmike.
14:35:35 - June 30th, 2010 The city of Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam was attacked by madmike. 2 defending armies (15,575 troops) were killed in the battle. 27,734 attacking troops were killed. ronnielim lost the city.
14:19:34 - June 30th, 2010 The city of Ca Mau, Vietnam was abandoned by madmike.
14:19:10 - June 30th, 2010 The city of Ca Mau, Vietnam was attacked by madmike. 1 defending army (1,580 troops) was killed in the battle. 962 attacking troops were killed. ronnielim lost the city.
13:37:59 - June 30th, 2010 The city of Kota Bharu, Malaysia was abandoned by madmike.
13:37:02 - June 30th, 2010 The city of Kota Bharu, Malaysia was attacked by madmike. 1 defending army (1,745 troops) was killed in the battle. 1,308 attacking troops were killed. ronnielim lost the city.
13:01:03 - June 30th, 2010 The city of Pakxe, Laos was attacked by madmike. No defending army (7,366 troops) was killed in the battle. 11,856 attacking troops were killed. videwesley retained control of the city.
11:40:52 - June 30th, 2010 The city of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia was abandoned by madmike.
11:40:20 - June 30th, 2010 The city of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia was attacked by madmike. 1 defending army (4,562 troops) was killed in the battle. 3,577 attacking troops were killed. ronnielim lost the city.


Why should he get as much credit for hitting and running as the person who actually held the cities. If players want to just hit and run fine, but their scores should reflect they played a one sided game and should not equal the scores of people who played and did not just make one big army..
Other than a few times of scorched earth policy and the Romans at times, In history armies did not hit and run, they hit to take an area.

you are blaming me for what WTO did the entire last reset and sometimes this reset also...???

Sorry , but to buy a big army and have some fun with it , is currently the most effective weapon....

Wasnt about you mike, dont be mad. Was just you were a good example since it is the only way you know how to play it seems.

I believe we should not be trying to define what the game is all about.

Shouldnt the game just be about having fun? If you want to hold cities, then at the end of the round you should try to have the most Value. But if you are not into holding cities, then at the end of the round you should aim to have the most Score. There should be no one winner of the whole game per round, but we should celebrate Alliances and Players with awards:

For Example.....

1. Alliance - Highest Value at Round End
2. Alliance - Highest Score at Round End
3. Alliance - Highest Loss of Troops at Round End
4. Alliance - Players Choice at Round End
5. Player - Biggest Win (Smallest troop army Vs Bigger troop army and win) at Round End
6. Player - Players Choice at Round End
7. Player - Highest Value at Round End
8. Player - Highest Score at Round End

The number and variety of awards should not be too great. This caters for the wide variety of playing styles and means that everyone might be aiming to get different awards, but will have to do so each in their own different ways but play on the same field.

Now how do you get Value, easy you hold a city right? Score should be that simplistic as well, you kill troops and win, you get Score.

The more complexe you make things, the less fun it is and the more confused the players will be.

I am sorry Ska I can not understand you without pictures....

http://chzhistoriclols.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/519a4d49-ae12-4b9a-9507-d3b60a1473da.jpg

You never disappoint do you ska, just amazing.

Wasnt about you mike, dont be mad. Was just you were a good example since it is the only way you know how to play it seems.

I think, you know better than that...;smoking

Actually I just wanted to be able to use Wasnt about you mike, dont be mad.
in a sentence :)

In real warfare a hit and run is a lot worse. A hit and run would likely include razing the city and destroying it. If you can't hold it deprive your enemy and destroy the city permanently. The hit and run keeps an alliance on its toes. Don't add an automated advantage to an alliance that is likely stronger than the "hit and runee". Protect your backside, that's the solution.

In real warfare a hit and run is a lot worse. A hit and run would likely include razing the city and destroying it. If you can't hold it deprive your enemy and destroy the city permanently. The hit and run keeps an alliance on its toes. Don't add an automated advantage to an alliance that is likely stronger than the "hit and runee". Protect your backside, that's the solution.

You see Peon a noob needs to TELL you how to play....
;ibeerfree beer for dmsecure...ROFL

Hit and run is a valid strategy and should not be punished, just because some people are scared about losing a city. Losing a city happens, get over it. Why would we be implementing something to discourage attacking in a WAR game?

If you want to discourage hit and runs then just stay online 24/7 or defend your city properly instead of a couple hundred soldiers. Hit and runs keep people honest in city defense.

If someone wants to build up a super army by attacking over and over again and gain massive experience so be it. Perhaps the reason for that tactic is to use that army to attack a resource city which is usually heavily defended.

Plus it is fun to annoy people with the hit and run, which could cause a player to go into a money burning blind rage of attacking, thus possibly achieving another goal of the hit and run. If you cause your opponent to go bankrupt or near bankrupt then they are right for the picking and easily defeated.

This is a war game. There's no rules in war just temporary agreements which are meant to be broken in the future. Everyone knows this. Learn it and stop whining.:'(

I was bored until I read this POST...
you are my HERO !!!
you made my DAY!!!
free BEER!!!
;beer;beer;beer;beer;beer;beer;beer

totally with you on that about him, what a great post.:)

On the topic of hit and runs, i have always been inclined to hate it. i used it in my first round with 3rd, but did not enjoy it. I've always liked holding cities and such, BUT I can't act like it isn't a valid strategy for those who use it time and time again. Just like everything else, it adds another element to the game, whether it is a nuisance or a positive isn't for any one player to decide, the fact is that it is a strategy and should be left at that.

BRING BACK SCORE

But as far as the big picture goes, I think Miss HellCarrot has the right idea :D

awww i think i like this guy too, and his post is nearly as good as the last guy



i might make this my new sig -But as far as the big picture goes, I think Miss HellCarrot has the right idea

I would be honored :bow

You see Peon a noob needs to TELL you how to play....
;ibeerfree beer for dmsecure...ROFL

Noob to GEWar, veteran of real war. Free beer... I'll take a hefeweizen ;beer

I was bored until I read this POST...
you are my HERO !!!
you made my DAY!!!
free BEER!!!
;beer;beer;beer;beer;beer;beer;beer

I thought you send a PM to one of the WTO players that he should not be doing hit and runs and yet you yourself takes pride in it.

There is nothing wrong with hit and run... what i suggest was to add extra features to the game.
and what ghetto suggested was also a very valid point.... militia to revolt if your holding army is too small..( i remember the game romance of the 3 kingdoms have this feature...)

I thought you send a PM to one of the WTO players that he should not be doing hit and runs and yet you yourself takes pride in it.

There is nothing wrong with hit and run... what i suggest was to add extra features to the game.
and what ghetto suggested was also a very valid point.... militia to revolt if your holding army is too small..( i remember the game romance of the 3 kingdoms have this feature...)

well, until WTO didn't hitnrun on me, I had stopped using it...
(Everyone blamed Misfits for their doing even the MODS)
but WTO made me using it again...and to make this clear, that I have started to fight WTO, after a WTO player informed me that my Friend Tweedy has to die.
I rather fight for a friend on my side than to hold cities.:vinsent

well, until WTO didn't hitnrun on me, I had stopped using it...
(Everyone blamed Misfits for their doing even the MODS)
but WTO made me using it again...and to make this clear, that I have started to fight WTO, after a WTO player informed me that my Friend Tweedy has to die.
I rather fight for a friend on my side than to hold cities.:vinsent

die?
you can kill someone in this game...:growse
WTO make u hit and run ? here is a quote from HC "loads of bull"

I dislike hit and run cause all it does is waste time. An active player can easily counter it and it is dull. I do not know why some people have to make it personal, but I just think you should get more score for holding cities and protecting them than abandoning them. And I was very amused by the history lesson, funny i said that 20 posts ago...

[QUOTE=ronnielim;212479]die?
you can kill someone in this game...:growse
WTO make u hit and run ? here is a quote from HC "loads of bull"[/QUOTE

hey no quoting me :censored WHEN YOU TALKING LOADS OF BULL


p.s you can blame raging and peon for my larger caps ;14

[
hey no quoting me :censored WHEN YOU TALKING LOADS OF BULL


p.s you can blame raging and peon for my larger caps ;14

I am just following your footsteps in your LOADS OF BULL

I am just following your footsteps in your LOADS OF BULL



hey STOP COPYING ME and read in the below comment by MDFootball44
But as far as the big picture goes, I think Miss HellCarrot has the right idea

I don't even get credit for the quote? :p

i have corrected my error. :) but for the record it was

MDFootball44:) and i have changed my sig to include your comment too as i said i would ;111

:love less than 10 characters

Why i not suprised over that discussion every time the game and after some aliances prepared their own field??

I agree with Pest it´s a wargame, but a war has rules too, if you want this.

Today some veterans of WTO, like Peon and ronni, are not amused over the hit and run, that they cooked in their own kitchen.

If you believe that domination and dictatorship in a region to zero everyone of other aliances make sense. Yiiipppppiiiieeehhhhh then we need four or five aliances to cut the world like a cake and everyone is happy.

But i don´t see a marker in google earth with names of aliances for cities.

I agree with mike, if i can´t hold a city cause dozen of enemies stand outside a attacked city, i have to be guerillia fighting to hurt this players.

This discussion will never end as long players or aliances will be permanent zeroed, as long we will not have fair battles, as long you not accept that a good counterattack is worth of respect for that player. let´s talk about honor, morales and respect.

who sows wind will reap storm.

if you want change the game, into a wargame without hit and run all players must get a chance to hold a city that they won.

Actual the strategy of some players is to scare longterm players and noobs of, and be suprised if the doantors playing hit and run cause you can´t scare them. LMAO

If this guys want to play alone then talk with luke to get your personal server. I believe he will make a good price for you.

i lost a tear for the big battles versus blitz, theo, a lot of other names could be filled in and with blitz red and pest and a lot of other good all guys (damn i missed the girls :D)

fantastic post

I really do not mind hit and run, it has a place. I just do not think you should score high for it.

did I started the thread as No hit and run ?
funny the thread turn out the other way round... hehehe

did I started the thread as No hit and run ?
funny the thread turn out the other way round... hehehe

I hit and ran Singapore, KL, KT, Redang Island and Bangkok and I will hit again.
Tiger beer & chicken rice rule.

PS : I am not superman - I flew back

did I started the thread as No hit and run ?
funny the thread turn out the other way round... hehehe

you asked for thought on hit and run. and most people would interpret that as "do you like or dislike hit and run".

Also,BRING BACK SCORE ;ipunk;ipunk;ipunk;ipunk;ipunk;ipunk;ipunk;ipunk;i punk;ipunk
;ipunk;ipunk;ipunk;ipunk;ipunk;ipunk;ipunk;ipunk;i punk

Also,BRING BACK SCORE ;ipunk;ipunk;ipunk;ipunk;ipunk;ipunk;ipunk;ipunk;i punk;ipunk
;ipunk;ipunk;ipunk;ipunk;ipunk;ipunk;ipunk;ipunk;i punk
Just because you can't see it in the game interface does not mean it does not exist. Score is currently weighted by total HPs killed. Totals will be posted at the end of the round, just like our previous round: Hall of Fame (http://gewar.net/war/statistics.php?do=halloffame)