[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

How is it different? And no, i'm trying to "imply" that we had no contingency. I'll try to word this carefully for the benefit of yourself and others who are hard-of-thinking. Obviously 1up have contingencies - we can always approach HC of other alliances and try to negotiate deals, and technically that qualifies as a contingency. Similarly, before the round started we spoke to a number of alliances (including FanG) and agreements were reached that if a major block developed at the start of the round we'd consider cooperation to force it to split up. The start of the round has passed - and that "contingency" is no longer relevant. We have no agreements with any alliance of "if event X happens then we will do action Y together". In fact we have absolutely no agreements or arrangements of any kind with any alliance whatsoever.

If you had no contingency I would say your own lack of planning will be your own downfall. Personally I used to treat Planetarion like chess (Yes I know its sad, but for my sins I used to play at county level in the UK for a chess club up until I was 19).

You make strategic and tactical decisions. Good tactics can win a game as can a good strategy, but invariably its a mixture of the two that end up winning. In this light the same sort of planning can be transferred to PA. Its fine been tactically great and winning battles, but the strategic direction also needs to be right. Strategy will give you several avenues of actions not just the one you prefer.

Perhaps I am paying you too much credit for your past wins, but I would say that from dealing with you in the past you have a sound understanding of both. This is why I find what you say to be misleading and also in part not entirely true.

If your total reliance was on the "group" bash theory you have unnecessarily limited your own alliance choices. I tried to convince you at the round start to "firm" up your own agreement. While I think the concept was honourable, without tidying up and tieing down the agreement it was always domed to fail. The biggest hole in it always was what defined to be an alliance between alliances.

It always was going to be a group of bashed alliances that banded together to try and force there way back into it and to gte a few less incomming. In my view it was always doomed without being structured right and all alliance HC's agreeing to it publicly and supporting it.

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

I'll try to spell this out slowly for you. When you're already actively being targetted by a number of alliances, it isn't wise to go out of your way to attack others. When I set targets I try to focus on galaxies with a number of members of alliances who we consider to be actively targetting us (as opposed to just hitting us where we're in galaxies that are nice targets). Where there's LCH in galaxies for our attacks they get hit just the same as anyone else in there. The sole exception to that is when an attack is very precisely targetted on an individual alliance, or is into a 1up galaxy - at which stage noone other than the alliance being targetted is launched on, irrespective of whether they're LCH, Vision, FanG or whoever.

I sort of agree with what you say, but then you have the flip of it. You have or are expressly targetting alliances which target you. By doing so you are essentially you're turning it into a survival fight. Alliances which are backed into a corner will always fight hardest, because failure to do so means they would be completely out of the game for the round.

So perhaps your failing is politically here?

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

You know fk-all about what I intend. I suspect you barely even know what your own intentions are. Your opinion of me/1up is not likely to be a determining factor in our future actions.

My intentions are to ensure my unborn baby is healthy and to make sure my gf has a great preganancy, other than that I think sometimes your PR is a little OTT by your members. Not many have had experience of dealing wih you sid or a Fury styled alliance. You are ruthless which is why your alliances are successful. What you say has some hidden motive and what you disprove or rubbish usually has some element of truth.

Your right I don't suppose my view does have a future bearing on your alliance, nor would I perceive that to be the case, but as an unallied player in this game, I have as much right to point out my views as you do to rubbish them. Thats the beauty of PA and AD - everyone can add to the discussions which for me enriches what is said.

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Don't rush back on my account.

I had no intention of rushing back - I had a good night sleep and I cooked tea for my gf - some things are more important than replying to a arsey HC