Just a few comments ...

For those not aware, the no. of members in an alliance is to drop to somewhere between 12 and 18. So even the best alliances are going to have to give up members. (In his defence - Kane has actively been promoting 12).

Niracas - The inference that XI used subs is just wrong. The Simpsons, F69 or XI have never used subs, nor have we ever broken a NAP. When a NAP expires either re-negoiate or prepare for war - that is the nature of BD!

I, for one, am hoping that people take up Kane's proposal as the smaller alliances could make for some challenging times!

That's probably why you aren't seeing much competition, you've just crossed out 11/13 of your "servers to play" list. I mean, you can dislike certain things about different maps, but to completely rule out 11 servers is just a little overboard don't you think?

Meh, each to their own. I'm talking to my F1 leader about this.

Mars and Fantasy maps are too small, not enough room for several alliances to duke it out, one alliance always pulls ahead and dominates, which is not much fun. Double tick has a whole other set of problems which I've explained elsewhere, far too much chaos and not enough strategy.

and I HAVE played on those sorts of servers, and I won too, so don't say it's not something I understand... I played and decided it was not what I wanted. So don't try to pretend there is some lost competition I haven't found, because I found what is there, and it's worse than the problems on E1 or E4.

I'm not saying you're stupid for not liking Mars and Fantasy, I'm just saying you're missing out. By the way, I don't think you've won a Fantasy round yet, so I am telling you I think there is some lost competition right there (totally my opinion though, I'm not pretending anything).

Current F1 would have been so much better if you and friends made an alliance there to contest us for one. It may be small, but it has housed 5 major alliances, and there was room for a 6th, not to mention it offered some fun during those wars, but not enough since there was no huge competition which could have been provided by you.

But like I said, I want to join this competition on E4. I don't like Earth much, though if I get some good wars, I won't mind.

Fantasy is just like Mars but more exaggerated, so I do know what it is like.

Actually, I do have a colony on F1... just because I'm not playing for real doesn't mean I can't watch and know what's going on.

I have heard that you were on F1, going "incognito", and I was not talking about knowing what was going on, more about winning a Fantasy round which you could have done if you did play for real with the friends you usually play with in E1 and E4 alliances.

thx
and i might come to E4 to get killed. but Kane take in some new people, i think if i get it my way KoH will have some new players.

but good round anyway

"...on a classic BD server (earth, single tick)..."

Kane... never call NC clients classic BD. It's a noob comment. Classic BD died with the client transfer... now we get to enjoy BattleHugs. >.> Wish I was kidding.

Also, there's plenty of strategy on double tick worlds, and they are far more effective for active players than a single tick world.

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that it has a fault, so your "problems" are irrelevant. As are the majority of your posts so far. This "Gauntlet" has no incentives other than shutting you up temporarily if we do join, and I could more easily just ignore you and continue to have fun with my friends playing how we always have on NC, by bringing in old-school OC know-how and recruiting random NC prospects.

Having competition or the lack there of is also not so much of a problem, as much as one play style beating another. Some alliances prefer to drag wars out, some prefer swift and strategic domination, and yet others prefer NAPs and backstabbing. These sometimes work in favor of each other to make an interesting round, but other times it just leads to swift endings. That's what makes the game interesting, and if you don't like it, well, you're not required to play.

The real issue here is activity, as skill can be taught, and even noob skill can lead to competitive rounds when multiple ACTIVE alliances are present. However, there just aren't as many active players as there used to be, or so it seems. You should be able to tell this just by watching other alliances that you attack. Either they respond immediately and end up putting up a tough fight, or they slowly respond to your attacks with feeble attempts at coordination, and you end up conquering them before the day's end. Either way, it wasn't because one alliance had all the skilled players necessarily, but rather one was active, while the other simply logged on every two days or so (exaggerating on the time).

Single tick earth servers are the classic setup, old client is old client. I'm playing Battledawn, I'm not living in the past. E1 and E4 are the vanilla servers, so that's where the challenge is being thrown down.

There is not more strategy for active players on double tick, just less strategy for the inactives, which is not very much fun to play against. As I've explained many times.

Either play or don't, but your arguments are a rehash of what I've already argued against.

I never said there was more strategy, only that there was plenty of it, and personally, if you're going to be inactive, stick to single tick servers... hence I said double tick worlds are more effective for ACTIVE players.

Also, just because you've argued against something doesn't mean you were correct in your comments, so bringing up what you have and haven't done is pointless. I was fair in what I said, so why do you ignore it?

I'm finding this interesting... you're for inactive players, love NC, and ignoring a valid point... I think I've conquered some people like you before.

Btw, inactivity is a contradiction to strategy, so what is this talk of "less strategy for the inactives"? If you're not going to be active, then you reap what you sow. What is it that has you so in bed with noob appeasement in BD?