Quote:
Originally Posted by Paisley
Open question to all...
Why would alliances go for a 1v1 war?
- IF your alliance is the stronger one and victory is swift ... Great in the short term but may come to bite you in the ass politically later down the line.
- IF your alliance are evenly matched then this would likely enduce a protracted war and the other alliances outside of the war grow faster in relative terms. (How else do you explain NDs ally win last round)
- IF your alliance is the weaker one ... you lose roiding supremacy, As a HC what would you do differently/change if you're taking a pounding?
You could impliment internal improvements but what if these do not suffice?
Do you continue to take a roiding or do you seek a political solution to stop this?
|
That would all be ok if this pending 'rumble' was CT/ND vs xVx - you could understand 2 on 1 to acheive an outcome... the problem as always seems to be that CT dont come alone or with a friend, they bring 4-5 other alliances to create flak so they can land.
Its what Apprime was accused of with ODDR for many rounds, byu members of CT aswell, yet overall CT are probably a worse offender of this... needing the likes of ROCK and now DFWTK aswell as 2 other 'top teir alliances' to start a war on someone.
This creates blocking against CT blocks and the whole universe goes to shit and the round becomes boring as hell....
How about this... ND cancel the nap break, DLR go and play with Ultores... DFWTK and ROCK go fiddle with HR and xVx and CT get left alone so xVx can take SOME MORE CT roids....
It will never happen but a lovely thought