Would Alliances allow the following:
 

A war between two alliances?

Would all of the top 15 alliances allow two to battle it out?

I propose CT & xVx go toe to toe.. But only if the other alliances promises to stay out of it.

I know it would be a complete rarity for PA, but it would be interesting to watch...

:salute:

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

I agree, an alliance war would be an excellent way for a certain number 1 gal to avoid even more incs!

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

Venox since you suck donky balls we dont listen 2 you you know that right??

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

CBA just salvage your ships pls!

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

Dont worry cba will crash them soon enough

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

Guys why do you think this post/thread has anything to do with!?

And stop saying that #1 gal is fenced.. p3ng/Ultores are working out a strategic way to hit it!!

ROCK roided us!
p3ng tried to roid us!

We are a war galaxy!! we do not fence!!

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

What benefits would allowing ct and xvx a solo fight bring other than to take the focus away from your gal , are you xvx gal mates happy with your suggestion and do you expect them to defend you if xvx hit you and the other ct in your gal ?

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

Let's just think outside the box for a second...

Forget Gals

Imagine a war, 1v1, CT & xVx... Both alliances, semmingly, think they will win. It would benefit the other allys as well, as they would see a reduced amount of incs. I just think it would really sttle a few scores..

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

It'd be good for everyone but CT and xVx. So yeah, not seeing it happen.

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

how in gods name is attacking each other in a war game thinking outside the box

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

Is this the strategy of them asking ToF for help but got turned down because two alliances just aren't enough to take 4 7 down? :salute:

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

Gary dont start bigging up your gal - you will just bring even more attention to it than it already has...

As i said to you in channel the flaw in cba's plan is if ct wars xvx then 4:7 is massively open to raids from ultores and app and so on... it will be 'bring a friend' night on your galaxy

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

Kaiba yes if xVx and CT all out war each other it doesn't look promising - bad blood, history etc (which I have not forgotten if you are thinking I'm too pro galaxy this round incidentally). And that is the real threat to 4:7, not the occasional 2/3 alliance joint raid every other week.

As for your theory about Ultores and Apprime finding 4:7 too tempting to turn down, we shall see. I would say the former not the later scenario is more likely. Ultores may well be busy soon in any case. Then your left hoping DLR joins P3ng, both of whom do not share the same attack class. May not be so black and white as you think.

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

lol...

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

lol i have to agree with gzambo

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

propose it in #alliances it would mean that CT and xvx would have to nap to everyone else bar themselves and even then there is scope to defend ingal it cant truely be 1 v 1

I like the suggestion that someone made about having ally speed games to resolve these disputes :D

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

Paisley i think the main point of this all was that CT and cba in particularly have been asking for 1 v 1 against xVx and then turned up with dlr and ND in tow along with 'convinent gal raids from their little friends :(

I mean surely if they had teh ability to go 1v1 with xVx then they would have come alone no??

CT's main problem tbh is overdeffing - they have 3 incommings last night - 10 fleets on 2 of them and 5-6 on the other and they chucked over 40 def fleets at it.... and most those deflfeets went to eta 1 and 2 when the attackers pulled off at eta 5 and 4.... also not active enough,,, I mean its understandable to have your fleet running long a bit at 5-6am but not at 10pm ... AWFUL!

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

Cba does not speak on behalf of CT kaiba. Dont confuse the individual and the entity.

Lets get one thing clear ( you clearly not jack diddly about the goings on)

Somebody let Santa run his mouth again
Santa (very generously) offered CT a bargain. Dont attack xvx and he would guarantee the xvx block of xvx ult and app would rape CT last
CT thanked him for his offer
CT changed the raid target from p3ng to Xvx

Kinda runs contadictary to whatever bs you have been spoon fed / imagined no?

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

I'm not taking any sides this round and I only signed up for R43 out of pressure from my own brother to late start for his galaxy :(
(Credit goes to clouds for "subhing" me a credit)

2 Sides to each story is one way to put it.
What I see is a battle for political supremacy between xVx and CT.

In terms of alliance strength.
Both alliances are (IMO) similarly matched where I would say CT defence isn't as good as xVx but CT see having a good offence is priority.

As for attacks the first alliance of these two that can use "Live BCing" especially in a Multi targetting round (working on the principle that ships cant be in two places at once/ and actively map who has fleets out) and can actively co-ordinate with their buddies from respective blocks. Will (IMO) gain the tactical superiority.

I have seen evidence in the past of both alliances using the above in some scope but they still stick to conventional raids as the main means to attack.
Its all about fleet logistics.

Whilst I wouldn't say Santa is the best at PA politics but I would say he is a decent/good tactician In the BC deptartment.

I would like to point out whilst CT and xVx war, ND wont mind this in gaining a roid lead.

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

i dont know or care what santa offered ct. but u just said app is part of a block with xvx and ultores.. lol

if its because app has been at war with DLR since protection ended (before there was a block against xvx). because DLR later joined with ct/nd doesnt mean if app hits them that we are part of the other block. app continues to hit DLR, for us it doesnt matter if they joined ct/nd or xvx/ultores. we would still hit them.

and pls as if we would join a block with ultores, which we consider as rats.

+ if app would be part of any block, no1 speaks for us. that means also santa

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

I didnt say app were part of a block with xvx and ultores maximillian, i reprted that santa threatened CT that xvx ult and app would rape CT.

Take it up with him if that bothers you.

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

threat or just a use of facts???

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

You're dead wrong DarkHeart, pm me on IRC and i'll paste you what gm and santa told me. If you actually have any interest in what happened besides spreading completely wrong info on AD.

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

Indeed CT waited for the 48 hour nap cool down period before having the balls to join in. No one should be fooled they changed from P3ng to xVx in an immediate reactionary manner.

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

contradiction in the space of 2 posts.....

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

how is that a contradiction?

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

well in plain text it is a contradiction,

.....the xvx block of xvx ult and app

I didn´t say app were part of a block with xvx

I´m sure that wasn´t what you meant tho

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

aye

colt - in the first bit you quoted it was santa claiming app ult and xvx were working together, i was stating the terms of his 'bargain'

in the second quote i confirmed it wasnt me claiming that (it was santa)

hope that clarifies it!

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

so some interesting stuff happened last night

ND dropped the nap with CT. XVX expected ND would join them on hitting CT and what happens...........

ND and ct went to hit XVX. i dont understand who didnt see this coming

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

lol its pretty awesome indeed :D quite some action tonight

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

got to love top crashers <3

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

lol

it seems maniacmagic told santa they will join them to hit CT. xvx then saw PL incs from ND and maniacmagic told him it was just a mistake and they would recall.

lol

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

ND can't be confident of prevailing - otherwise why lie when it is obvious what they were about to do ..?

Anyway keep crashing like you are and there will be no ships left to attack us with! :salute:

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

Allegedly

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

Hmmm so I'm not DZ I normally don't do politics, and those who have done them with me b4 know that I will screw them up royally and leave lots and lots of work for DZ.

I've been out traveling most of this round and kind of started plying as a late start but not really paying attn until this week.

Partly my fault for retalling APP, CT was getting ganged by ULT P3ng and xVx. Seeing how bad it was and how un needed that was I was also face by Santa to extend the cool down only if we drop the NAP with CT.

CT was pretty upset with us due to the gangbang, and tbh I'm not going to leave a friend there to take that.

Good politics? Probably not, but I saw it as the best tactics ... so thats why I'm not supposed to do politics ;) People take it personally Well its just a game so enjoy your salvage *sigh*

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

Seriously ManiacMagic, you walked on AD and just told us that you are shit?

Can we quote you on that in future, if you are busy with posting bullshit again?

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

*wiiittthhhh politics =0)

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

Everyone is lying, Santa wanted us to break nap with CT so tehy could be our friends?? So let me get this right ... you want us to watch/participate as you gang rape our friend so that we can be friends??

The only thing that made my lie any worse is that it took place imediately and it was evident.

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

MM: where was this friendship between ND and CT when ND made a ceasfire deal with xvx and ult? ND/CT were supposed to be together rite (with their flak DLR), but then ND makes a deal in secret with xvx/ult and let CT get all the hits. Maybe thats why u choose to backstab xvx, and this way CT would have no choice but to work with ND again, since ct is stuck in their war with xvx. So we are back at the same point when this started.

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

amazing politics there ND.. amazing :D

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

Unless CT find a way to do a 180 and turn on ND instead... I know this is never gonna happen but would make for a delightful end of the round at least.

[SPOILER ALERT]
congratulations to shaz(unless ND ****s up badly somewhere down the line) , alki's gal and ultores tho...
[/SPOILER]

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

Trust me there was a lot less thinking than that.

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

I'd be interested to hear what possible incentive ND could have to turn against CT this round.

CT appears to be no threat to them (as long as xVx & P3ng keep CT busy) and the longer CT keeps drawing fire from xVx/Ult/P3ng the happier ND should be.

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

agreed, shame on xVx politics on thinking they actually had an incentive here!

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

This rounds politics are very entertaining :)
Chaotic, sometimes completely illogical, but entertaining. :D

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

I really viewed it as that last few scenes in the new star trek ... where that enemy ships is firing massive ammounts of weapons at spock (ct) ... and then out of no where the enterprise comes plowing back for spock ....

man i love star trek so pls dont read into that analogy any more than that far bc i know it can be twisted :P

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

at the time i considered it more like Braveheart while the nobles abandon Wallace on the battlefield... i was getting ready for the vengeful killing of the leaders while they sleep!

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

Yes... Because it is obvious to EVERYONE that CT has been the 'Spock' of the round...

Really? REEEEEEALLY?

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

Where CT/ND were the sheeps on the field 100 miles away?

Re: Would Alliances allow the following:
 

If there were sheep in the vicinity you can guarantee gm would not be 100 miles away from them