Battle of SantLUEville/Historical Event Votings

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

The Battle of SantLUEville

It's been over for some time now, but the article is well-documented and finally in a conclusive state.

Just as the historical Battle of Santerville proved survivors could withstand a large-scale zombie attack, the Battle of SantLUEville proved that an organized, distributed defense could be overcome by zombies with sufficient numbers and planning. At the same time, it proved how effective this type of defense could be, even against very large and coordinated hordes. Finally, for a large battle it was remarkably organized on both sides, with few active independents, especially on the zombie side. This contributed to a unique dynamic in terms of how the battle was able to progress and be fought.

Major participants include the Dribbling Beavers, the Mad Craskers and the The Burchell Arms Regulars (among others) on the survivor side, and LUE and the RRF's Gore Corps on the zombie side.--Insomniac By Choice 13:05, 21 July 2008 (BST)

For (The Battle of SantLUEville)

  1. Insomniac By Choice 13:05, 21 July 2008 (BST)
  2. It's nice to see someone cleaned up the conclusion of the page since the battle. For that, and my memory of the battle, which was rather grand, I say Yes. DanceDanceRevolution 13:46, 21 July 2008 (BST)
  3. It may not have been as giant and epic as the original Battle of Santlerville, but it was still a pretty big event. It remained the only time that we (LUE) struck with our full force (in other words, excluding the times when we shrunk, going solely by our days of being 300-400 strong) and weren't able to easily dismantle our opponents. It was some extremely intelligent defending on the survivors part, and it forced us to switch up our tactics-if for nothing else, this battle deserves historical status for proving that an intelligent survivor presence can make even a 300 man strike team have to think outside the box--Panthera 00:57, 22 July 2008 (BST)
  4. Skullbullet 22:08, 22 July 2008 (BST)
  5. Ah, what surprise we LUEsers shared that one time when we went to click "Enter Building" outside Hall NT only to find ourselves with another face full of barricade.--DJ Deadbeat 23:35, 22 July 2008 (BST)
  6. LOLosaurus 00:53, 23 July 2008 (BST)
  7. Before my time, but an example of a respectable conflict between two groups of classy players. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 01:10, 23 July 2008 (BST)
  8. this was my first major siege, quite memorable--Jamoecw 08:02, 23 July 2008 (BST)
  9. Grim is wrong. As both the event's page itself and the testimonials of the participants attest, this event had a major impact on the tactics of the largest and most destructive -- nigh unstoppable, really-- horde Malton had known to date. And it was huge. You don't have numbers like that without drawing people from multiple suburbs together. This event is most certainly historical. --WanYao 09:49, 23 July 2008 (BST)
  10. YES! --Fifth Element 10:44, 23 July 2008 (BST)
  11. It's what's led to the greater focus on active revives.--Karekmaps?! 11:45, 23 July 2008 (BST)
    Absolutely. StupidGenius 11 No timestamp. --ZsL 00:25, 25 July 2008 (BST)
  12. My being a LUEser has no bearing on this decision. No sir, none whatsoever. --Zombie in Pajamas 22:45, 23 July 2008 (BST)
  13. Yes. - Brona 23:11, 23 July 2008 (BST)
  14. Yes, for reasons stated above. --Lejes 01:26, 24 July 2008 (BST)
  15. Yes, and Rexy was real tasty. --Malkav 01:36, 24 July 2008 (BST)
  16. Yes - I don't vote here much, but I think this should be a historical event.--Jamie Cantwel3 TalkAll glory to the Hypnotoad! 13:33, 24 July 2008 (BST)
  17. Yes, it definately sounds like it would be historical. --Mutt 12:33, 24 July 2008 (BST)
  18. Yes, It was a very unique fight with the planning and strategy that hasn't really ever been demonstrated on UD so I do believe that if some of the other historical events could qualify this one defiantly should. --SirArgo 18:42, 24 July 2008 (BST)
  19. Yes - Well written article & interesting historical event. --Kikashie Read the Dispatch! 03:36, 25 July 2008 (BST)
  20. Yes - For how it changed the purpose of the combat revive; it's now a very offensive weapon, as it pretty much means a zombie effort to kill the living is definitely neutralized - even countered - by an equal survivor effort to revive their fallen even while in battle. And we learned that from all those nights with Sexy Rexy. --Aeon17x 14:29, 25 July 2008 (BST)
  21. Yes - --Papa Moloch 23:12, 27 July 2008 (BST)
  22. yah - now after reading the article i changed my vote.----SexualharrisonStarofdavid2.png Boobs.gif 03:13, 30 July 2008 (BST)
  23. yes. --Justin 08:14, 2 August 2008 (BST)

#Yes. Not much else to say. --/\Haliman/\ T | CC | UC | P! | W! 04:09, 8 August 2008 (BST) Vote striken, because it falls past the 2 week voting period. Sorry. --WanYao 16:28, 14 August 2008 (BST)

Against (The Battle of SantLUEville)

  1. Against - Fails to meet the second requirement: The event must have affected either multiple suburbs or how the game was played for a group, such as triggering a change.. Suburbs have been wiped out hundreds, if not thousands of times by now. This is nothing new nor special. --The Grimch U! E! 01:24, 23 July 2008 (BST)
    I'm not forcing *ahem* any historical opinions on you Grim but just suggesting for the purpose of persuading voters and clarifying your opinion on the battle, but does the subsequent rampage the LUE did after SantLUEville count as affecting multiple suburbs? I seem to remember a storm beforehand and a wave of destruction afterwoods, particularly west to a quickly destroyed Stickling Mall... DanceDanceRevolution 08:02, 23 July 2008 (BST)
    It affected how the game was played for LUE; it resulted in a numerical decrease from people not liking the idea of being held off (to the point that we had an attack a week or so later that had about 20 people active, though we recovered for the push to Caiger), and is what resulted in us varying up our attack times and generally approaching things with a lot more caution. Speaking of Caiger, it affected the "siege" there; this isn't too well known, as it didn't really pan out, but the only serious attempt at organized resistance involved a plan that was heavily based on the tactics used at Santlerville against us (I know this because the guy who was trying to organize that is a friend of mine, and he showed me his exact plan after the battle was done). Not much happened from it, but the closest effort to stopping the group of hordes that went on to trash half the city in celebration was directly based on this event. Seems like it would qualify to me.--Panthera 08:17, 23 July 2008 (BST)
  2. I have higher standards for events. As Grim. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:39, 23 July 2008 (BST)
  3. Grim's opinion convinced me. I know. That's amazing, isn't it? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 23:08, 24 July 2008 (BST)
  4. Nah...--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 21:35, 25 July 2008 (BST)
  5. NO... Grim gave me a cookie.----SexualharrisonStarofdavid2.png Boobs.gif 03:04, 30 July 2008 (BST)

Voting period finished. The Battle of SantLUEville has been declared historical by a vote of 23 For and 4 Against. --WanYao 16:35, 14 August 2008 (BST)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Battle_of_SantLUEville/Historical_Event_Votings&oldid=1248139"