There's always a lot of complaining from the newer warlords when it comes to getting attacked, and they are almost always met with outright hostility from others, and accusations of raising ponies or somesuch. Speaking of which, I never really got that. It just isn't logical to use an empire for happy pony raising. I could understand daisie planting, as nobody likes having their daisies trampled, but ponies would just run away, would they not? Nyeh. Anyway, it seems to me that these warlords might be somewhat in the right occasionally. Accusations of being weakling whiners are thick against them, but who really are the pansies in this scenario? Often there is more than one of them involved.
I feel fairly authorised to discuss this topic, since you can tell by my warlord number that I've been here for quite some time. I've held top ten positions on several occasions, and have been devastated more than once without complaining. It has been my policy for quite some time, that even when I am quite weak, I limit my attacks to within ten ranks of me (20 if I'm weak), and try not to attack more than four times in two days, striking any specific warlord on consecutive dates as rarely as possible, unless the attacks are in retaliation.
It seems to me that in the fairly recent past, some bright fellow on RWL discovered that people very far below him are much weaker than he. After deep contemplation, he then concluded that he would be able to defeat them with less effort than he would require for stronger opponents. Fidgeting madly in glee at this discovery, he proceeded to click the attack button many more times than he at first intended. To his great satisfaction, he was able to gain land just as easily many many times over by only attacking one person. Gadzooks! What if he were to do this every day? He would rise ranks much faster than he would before. In fact, he would be unstoppable. (insert evil laugh corresponding to pansy in question) And thus was born the "Pansy vs. Weakling Strategy".
The pansy would of course be the stronger warlord, and the weakling the victim. This is misleading, however, as the weakling might not be weak at all in relation to those around him, and under any other circumstances should prosper. The stronger warlord on the other hand, usually has an army not really worthy of his rank, and without his newfound goldmine of weaklings, would not prosper. Oftentimes pansies have no real strategy to speak of, nor the intelligence to speak of it with. They are also great targets for those around them, meaning that much of their land is taken away. Because of this, the pansyman (or pansywoman) doubles his efforts and already limping weaklings are beaten further. Nooo, Not the amputies!
I hope that you have enjoyed the highly scientific summary of observations. Needless to say, I have no great love of pansies. They are so common, however, that one is almost forced to adopt the "Pansy vs. Weakling" strategy just to maintain one's rank. May words flow freely from they fingers... Unless of course I don't like them. That's why people get dirty fingernails.
What? Could this possibly be the longest, most un-post-warish-like post on record at RWL??? Egads! Perhaps it is! Just to confirm that, I am adding this useless sentence which informs the reader why it has been typed.
*nods* I enjoyed the last paragraph the most. There have been longer posts, I think, and as much as I hate to say it, I think Beatles posted one about as long or longer than this.
That's interesting though...I try not to be a pansy, but to avoid that I'd have to pulverize EVTF to stay on my feet financially. There still are some Happy Pony Raisers out there, and they're usually attacked by Pansies, which is why they become Pony Raisers in the first place.
hmmmm I used to do that... then I realised that it promotes low military strength and high land fat. lol
I think I'm developing a land-fat obsession...
Calria...I think I attacked you when you were in Royal. Oops. About the pansy thing, who invented it?
I couldn't agree more. I used to do that. But you can tell by the fact of my low landly-ness that it was a pretty bad idea ^_^;;;
Quote from: OrcristCalria...I think I attacked you when you were in Royal.
*thinks* I don't think I was ever in Royal... pretty sure, in fact... *shrug*
There may have been longer posts... but they were on the last forum! They are no longer "on record", you see. ;)
As for who invented it, I have no idea. There were and are many warlords who used strategies much similar, though less pansy-like. I don't think that I'd be missing my guess in saying that Ragefur did something of the sort to bounce back so often. (not that he was the only one, nor am I accusing him of starting it all) It just kinda got worse as it went on. When newer warlords were attacked many times, they thought it was the norm, and what matter if they attack a bit more than that?
Continuing onward to the subject of pony raising, I liked my own wittiness much better than that of others, and believe that I shall call those individuals daisy farmers from now on. :D
I used to do that, until I got used to the game and figured stuff out.
Now I usually attack, and have been attacking, people 50 ranks ahed of me ;)
Talderhash- Happy Pony Raising sounds better.
Seeing as that you are not rank 50, I don't see how that's possible now ^_^ I guess when you were #150 something. Yeah, Happy Pony Raisers is original. Any daisy-like copying is just not as original.
Beatles posted the longest post I've ever seen in the PALS on the old forum. It was all about cheese and it made no sense whatsoever.
No- Stormy's post about the original DI was REALLY long.
Personally, I prefer Happy Pony Raising, but I'm biased.
What you are all forgetting is that there have been clans which protected weaker members from this sort of thing - DI, or RIM for example. I am actually inclined to say that RIM did more protection of weak warlords, as I had 3 warlords who joined my clan when they were very low in the ranks - from 80th to 150th, as I recall.
Talderhash, as you well know, hordes who were not afraid to ask me(with good grammar and or spelling) to refrain from attacking them were very likely to be granted that wish. I don't see why you have to drag my name through the mud.
~A Message From Ragefur
Heh, Ragefur, he didn't do anything like that. Read more carefully. Oh and, from what I've heard, what you said is also not true, but I'm not certain so I won't go into that.
Germania, when I was still actively RWL-ing, I regularly cracked people 30 ranks ahead of me. Unfortunately, this was not a wise strategy, because they ganged up on me with their buddies. For the end result, put 458 into the Warlord Search. ;)
Cracking people 50 ranks below you, well, griever would be offended at what you said, though I rather agree with it. What we should actually do is raise the base cost of the rat to 500 million bucks, and then averyone build one guard tower. Then, try and wizard it out. j/k :P
Seriously, though, this business should be admonished to where you can't attack people with half your netowrth, at all, unless you somehow convince the computer that you're just retaliating... B)
Beatles
I'm fairly certain that he only implicated me in reference to the smushing people much lower than my NW.
Warlords aren't supposed to have ethics, and besides, I was 175th when I successfully broke through TarsoniII's defenses(he was 3rd at the time). So it's not impossible for low ranking people to beat up on the top tenners.
~A Message From Ragefur
Anybody can do that, provided you have leaders. And you were high up before you got smashed yourself, that's the only reason you succeeded. Basic reason, of course: you joined early. Bouncing back is easier, becasue you still have a lot of troops.
I didn't mean any offense, Ragefur. I only gave your name as a little example. You cannot claim that you survived that well for so long by just scouting land. It was more the mass volume of attacks I was referring to rather than their concentration on weak warlords. Pretty much everyone of high rank does the same thing. I've seen my old clan leader (Red Ravens) Overlord make fairly high amounts of attacks during recovery before, and I've obviously not lost any respect toward him. Heh. Ended up plummeting something like 70+ ranks for that, too. (cursed KM members...) Anyhow, I'm aware that vermin shouldn't really have ethics (well, not good ones, at least) but as the people who actually do the game playing, it makes sense to encourage others to continue playing, even if the vast numbers already here are almost too much.
At the moment I don't attack anyone ranked lower than myself except when doing retal attacks. Yesterday I took 720 acres from someone about 30 ranks above me in retaliation. 8 more acres than they took from me, actually. ...How does "Happy Pony Raising in Daisy Fields" sound? :P
1st rule of Roman warfare: "If you can't win, don't fight."
It really is THAT simple. & that, for the vast majority of Warlords, is how the game is played, regardless of rank.