have the land claimers won?

What did they win?

When I look at the alliance rankings, for whatever they are worth, I see many of the top 20 alliances (in terms of land and pop), are not involved in this skirmish.  What say you big alliances?  Does the land claim bother you?  Does the general growth, clustering, and confederation of these claiming alliances pose a threat to you in the future?  

personally I believe the failure of stomp was the additional ability of having over ten cities in an account with no population decrease between nine and ten...no additional high population buildings were added.....a lot of us have a very strange building mix in our cities...we playing a very slanted game....also there have been no additional war functions and the ones in game were introduced when the game play was very different....few want to war cause of time involvement required...many players have adopted the wait to play mentality similar to the devs roll out
of promised functions....thanks to both sides and especially to pico in providing entertainment.

Edited by twilights - 26 Jul 2015 at 16:38

What actually HAS been gained or lost by this war between pro-land claimers and those against??  Land claimers are still claiming, alliances are still conversing about the "change " in the game. 

I think this war illustrated how effective a method of defense the clustering of an alliance is. While the members of SIN are excellent at warfare I think it would have been an entirely different battle had they been fighting an alliance that was also clustered in a land claim for defense. I did not take the time to look at the location of every city lost, but I think a majority of those that fell on both sides were outside of an area where the alliance could defend efficiently.