RET primary contact > [player]conde180711[/player] secondary contact > [player]therealdeal_37[/player]
GR primary contact > [player]xman5151[/player] secondary contact > [player]kmhebert[/player]
Games to be played in 2 sets, set 1 to be created by 21st March 5d/5/t/5q each clan + tie breaker set up by RET. Set 2 to be set up by 4th April, 5d/5t/5q each clan.
Random maps only Tie breaker in set 1, random, trips, esc, chained, sunny Trench games have a 30 round limit - other settings must have no round limit No manual, freestyle, polymorphic, parachute or no forts to be used 12 hour Fog of War rule in effect. If broken, the offending team has to copy/paste game log and reveal what terrs were visible. If not remedied, the offended team can opt to remake the game before end of round 1. The rule does not apply to conquest maps and where the only action is deploy/fort without attacks.
Each player can play max 23 games in a war. Each clan has to use minimum 10 different players during war.
Yes not a very good start from us, 2nd half we need to wake up! At least we're on the board finally
Re: (RC-R1) RET Vs GR (12-4) of 61
Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2014 5:28 am
by Conde180711
xman5151 wrote:Yes not a very good start from us, 2nd half we need to wake up! At least we're on the board finally
Think its going to get worse before / if it gets better
Re: (RC-R1) RET Vs GR (15-5) of 61
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 1:35 pm
by The_Samurai
19-5 for Retribution at the moment
Re: (RC-R1) RET Vs GR (20-5) of 61
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:39 am
by The_Samurai
23-6 for Retribution Thanks for the war, GR.
Re: (RC-R1) RET Vs GR (20-5) of 61
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 9:27 pm
by xman5151
Congrats guys - you played very well!
Sorry we didn't have a more competitive showing
Re: (RC-R1) RET Vs GR (20-5) of 61
Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 5:26 am
by iAmCaffeine
Ouch.. Strange lack of luck-based quads in this one GR, how come?
Re: (RC-R1) RET Vs GR (35-16) of 61 RET WINS
Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:50 pm
by Conde180711
updated, good war gr
Re: (RC-R1) RET Vs GR (20-5) of 61
Posted: Sat May 10, 2014 7:01 pm
by Trevor33
iAmCaffeine wrote:Ouch.. Strange lack of luck-based quads in this one GR, how come?
Random maps... sitting at 41-18 at the moment
Re: (RC-R1) RET Vs GR (20-5) of 61
Posted: Sat May 10, 2014 8:52 pm
by kmhebert
iAmCaffeine wrote:Ouch.. Strange lack of luck-based quads in this one GR, how come?
Are you even kidding with this.
Re: (RC-R1) RET Vs GR (35-16) of 61 RET WINS
Posted: Sat May 10, 2014 9:11 pm
by xman5151
Yeah I don't see a need to bring it into this thread. The result in our war wouldn't have changed anyway
Well done RET, you really outplayed in this one. Congrats and good luck the rest of the tourney!
Re: (RC-R1) RET Vs GR (20-5) of 61
Posted: Mon May 12, 2014 10:43 am
by iAmCaffeine
kmhebert wrote:
iAmCaffeine wrote:Ouch.. Strange lack of luck-based quads in this one GR, how come?
Are you even kidding with this.
xman5151 wrote:Yeah I don't see a need to bring it into this thread. The result in our war wouldn't have changed anyway
Well done RET, you really outplayed in this one. Congrats and good luck the rest of the tourney!
It was a legit question. I assumed it was a strategy that you used against clans you think will outplay you, but you didn't do that here so I was curious.
Although Trevor answered my question and I realised I was being a bit dumb, but that's because Aeternus don't play in the Random League or Cup.
Re: (RC-R1) RET Vs GR (35-16) of 61 RET WINS
Posted: Wed May 14, 2014 1:57 pm
by kmhebert
I have no intention of discussing our war strategies outside our clan. That being said, RET did great here and won on their merits. It's ungracious and poor sportsmanship (not to mention false) to imply that Grim Reapers have done otherwise in wars we've won.
Re: (RC-R1) RET Vs GR (35-16) of 61 RET WINS
Posted: Wed May 14, 2014 5:03 pm
by iAmCaffeine
kmhebert wrote:I have no intention of discussing our war strategies outside our clan. That being said, RET did great here and won on their merits. It's ungracious and poor sportsmanship (not to mention false) to imply that Grim Reapers have done otherwise in wars we've won.
Implications can be read when they're not present. I won't go off-topic any further.
Congratulations Retribution. I know a few of your guys, maybe we'll cross paths at some point.