Who would win?

As in Ravi and Shammy and Zen and Elkronos era WoG? All due respect to elders, but that WoG went toe to toe with TIE back in the day

Haha. This spawned from a comment that i made that no elders warleaders are considered in top 10 warleaders all time, and no one ever mentions elders in pound for pound warclans.

But we are also the only clan to tk laf three times and live to talk about it. We're also the only warclan with an 8 set winning streak....ever.

I was in RAGE as a warleader when WoG joined. Diety at the time was a better warleader than I, but that was the very beginning of analytics being a part of war, and he fell off as new more math heady and observation friendly leaders took control.

I was there for both and would take elders on a flip fone in a hurricane member to member against them or any other tag ever. It's legit not close in terms of beating larger clans on a nw scale. Talking about the only clan with 150m nw comebacks after fs and its happened now 4 times...the only 4 times.

Era vs era comparisons are pretty silly IMO.

Beerhouse days !

MoG > WoG

;)

Confirmed.

I mean yeah. Comparing Patton to Washington makes little sense, but the history channel still does it.

Just because it doesn't make sense doesnt mean people dont do it.

Napoleon vs Genghis Khan?

Mongols in a shutout.

Fite me.

Rd was still the best warring alliance with the tools they utilized.

LAF was pretty good too, having direct access to the database?

Who ran wog in the earth council days? Cause wog vs met was fun. I believe met won in a close war

Deitylord and crusader. I fought in that war, and WoG won.

RD would win.

So who is the G.O.A.T?

IX was pretty damn good at war

We need some stats. I thought we won. We might not have u might be right. I might be right

Lol @ IX..

RD is the G.O.A.T. Silly lol

No Alliance now can match up to anything form the E2025 era.

Disagree. The tip of the spear is no sharper or duller than before but the broad masses of minions are no more. The highlights we have today, the bots, the tools and average levels of knowledge and skill within almost all alliances are at a level far beyond what anyone ever had before. Pound for pound most alliances now are better than the alliances of yore. And this is NOT a good thing. It just means the rigors of war has forced out what was once the base of this game.

Take IX in their hayday with the best war leaders and their tools, of that day and then RANDOMLY cut away 85% of them so you have member pairity with todays SOL, then put them against each others; SOL would crush.
The reason you are putting them on a pedistal is because they had more members and its far far easier to war lead and to make war efficiently with more members. Further, maybe 1 or 2 of the warleaders really was better than they are now, regardless of membership, but that doesn't mean that the average warleader of that time is better or even achieves pairity with todays best.

What elders have is a tight group of veterans who nearly exclusively played for war in the past years and they are not really taking many new people to teach. Being great pound for pound is something only Elders work towards right now, so they are winning a competition in which they are the only participant.
If LaF, SoF and SOL putting their 10 most active and skilled members(in terms of war) in a separate tag and then warring with that tag they would all be challenging Elders.
I don't know who would win that and I suppose it would deppend on when the war happens. Either way I don't see it happening.

No, they’re on a pedestal because they did what they did without bots and scripts.

Give old alliances the access to tech we have now and it would be no contest.

The biggest challenge for a war leader is waiting for turns. Not getting enough turns challenges your target selection and war strategy in ways those leaders were never challenged. I rather have 200 members than a bot that tells ppl the break and shows me who is online. What good is knowing who is online at what time if half my players are not hitting because the one warchat time per day we can fill does not suit them?

I have run warchats without bots too and its not difficult. It may cost more units and it may take 5-10 seconds more but its not hard.

The same way you say give old alliances the tech of today I would then counter with; Let todays alliances share passwords or run multies like the old alliances did and I will take those odds. :)

You girls going to argue about which era was better or kiss and makeup?

sounds like a challenge

Why don't you organize that? Seems like more of a throwaway statement than Derrick challenging a long since dead clan to a duel of eras

There's nothing in it for me/us. If there was I'd do it in a heartbeat.

Oooooooooooooooo

What about bragging rights?

If we split off our 10 most active players to war and the rest of our tag netgains the griefers will have a field day with the other 20-25 who will have a hard time killing anyone on their own.

I think its their wet dream and it would be a huge mistake for us to do that.

This has credit I sort of like the idea

A mongolian bow has a range of 200-500 metres, a 12 pound canon from napoleonic times has a range for 900-1,800 metres. The monglians would be able to move faster than the French but I dont see how they could win in an actual pitched battle.

If the mongols fought in the dark raining arrows on an unsuspecting enemy French camp they would win.

What if SoL or some other tag agreed to kill any "griefers". Wars here are lame this would actually be very entertaining.

I bid to disagree. anyone with me?

If the mongols fought in the dark raining arrows on an unsuspecting enemy French camp they would win.


You are going to try and coordinate thousands of Mongols in a surprise night attack??!?!?! Good luck with that.

https://youtu.be/0KnlN4OAjmQ

bonus

Usually people that doubted mongol coordination ended up massacred, just saying. If the Mongols get close enough to the lightly armored, extremely slow reloading, and mostly inaccurately firing french lines, the French are going to have a bad day.

Build the schitty wall!

Crickets lol

I still stand by this. I would actually enjoy watching a slug fest between 2 active smaller tags heads up. It would come down to strategy as turns would be limited.

Tend to fully agree.
Not to mention that what qualifies as "good war leaders" is massively different. 6 - 8 years ago Good war leaders had target selection and decent game knowledge compared with knowing some war formula's. However one of THE most important skills they had to have was CONTROLLING the warroom. Getting people to listen. Warrooms could consist of 40 - 50 hitters. <--- That has much more to do with the social skills of the warchat leader as an individual.

Warleaders now are seen as great when they "finish" targets. Or pick the right ones to kill. But that criteria can't be more wrong. As the factors involved in turning such a decision in the best possible result (a kill) are partially controlable but most of it is out of the current chatleaders hand. (examples being: out of hitters, to much stock on the wallers end compared to your hitters left etc. etc. are all limitations)

Looking at warleaders of old, it was far more in their hands. Much more control. Warrooms consisting of 15 - 50 hitters. Managing those hitters was part of the succes of your warroom AKA being able to finish targets. Stuff like running into a waller was a challenge, would force people to devise a plan to finish that particual waller off. Criteria you could set for good warleaders then was stuff like: Tactics and strategy to target finishing, war room control in rushes, spy op use etc. etc. etc. Those criteria still count but are very much limited by the current amount of players. (Hence me constantly blaring that MORE players will solve most of the current problems (which are open wounds with bandages being sticked upon them).


As for pound for poundness I full heartedly agree that Elders is likely the only one trying to compete in that area.

@Gerdler I'm willing to gather up some SOLers/LaFfers to make Elders/mercs work for their much desired title?
If ABM as our new godlike leader agrees to it SOL can help you man handle whatever griefers come your way.

Let's chat about that :)

Oooooooo

Why do you need lafers makinso? Gerdlers claim to which you agreed is that you can pick sols 10 best and compete. If the competition is taking the best 10 non elders in the game and fighting elders, then it's obviously going to be close

@Sin are you nervous about 5 from each tag?



/me gets popcorn.

/me thinking if this actually happens next set this should be good

/me thinking Derrick might owe me a thank you for making this damn thread

<3

as a long time member of WoG (who currently still uses the tag in my country names) and current Elders/Merc/Darkness guy:

I have to say that in the current state of the game Elders would wipe the floor with WoG.

Elders has mathematicians, app developers and data analysts on staff that give us awesome tools to war. The game is now too far advanced and fast paced to compare to the old days were guys had to physically call your land line to wall and you had 5 minutes to turn on your computer and connect to the web.

This is like asking what is better, faster and stronger: your cool no technology 1969 Corvette or your brand new 2020 ZR1.

If we were in the past without fancy tools and Elders players had the same dedication and zeal that they do now to the game than I would say that Elders would still beat old WoG.

There probably wouldnt be a ton of kills tbh. Lots of walling and probably lack of turns to kill except in daily waves. And now that BR only takes out buildings if you are same strat, probably mostly a spy and ab war breaks out with nw being the only real determinant, and kills a rare commodity, even if the war were to break out midset.

Elders thrives with whomever to provide kill fodder and turns, but would be interesting to see in that setting. If laf could put forth at least 6 players who can hold down a wall, I'm thinking elders would have a tough time in that setting competing against the servers best netters, moreso than the servers best waller/killers.

It would be mostly interesting to see because i don't think a war that primarily involved building and strategy has occurred really in mid to late sets. Thats usually something that happens early. But when you have numbers, kills are effective. That's not really the case in a small setting ripe with the game's very best wallers.

It's sort of a dream scenario for what gerdler likes about war tbh. He's a big fan of the best builders winning and strategy going thru several phases throughout a war, instead of, as he says, an endless string of gs. I'd honestly say tho, advantage netters who know its coming if they wall like they wanna win. For sure.

That is actually pretty easy.

for both SOL and LAF counts that our membership rotates ALOT, we can like rotate 50% of our members in 1 set (this is also what keeps SOL alive and as big as we are). Meaning if you want me to give you the pound for pound challenge you're looking for I can get 6 - 8 consistent members that compare to being as long and consistently playing as the Elders/Mercs group. That means numberwise I probably can't give equality. So getting the pound for pounds from a similar tag sof/laf (whom are the only other ones really warring frequently) is the only way to give you the challenge you seem to be looking for.

LaF has the same.

I'm going to assume this was deleted on accident.
Fixed.

Have a swirvey day.

My stares in the general direction of galleri 👀