Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
I dont know what you are talking about.
You were looking to end the round with NAPing Ult, and there was no other way to end it at that point?
|
Well how do you end wars then? You cant just walk off and assume that the other side will lose interest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
The whole initial reason for alliances like BowS/CT wanting to give Ult some incs was to avoid total and complete domination that early on in the round, what would be the point to hit Ult initialy if we were all gonna NAP our way out of it afterwards?
Did you not know the consequences of your action when you agreed to a tick900 deal?
|
Of course we did (or at least the ones to do with ult - did not anticipate app turning on us). Yes ult wins, but we knew that was going to happen even if the war continued. If the question is about the size of the win then why does that matter to p3n/ct/nd? If we were the ones going to suffer to slow down that win then I would rather gamble on the domination conundrum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
Didnt we just go over this shit in numerous thread last round?
|
Did we? There does not seem to have been any chance of complete domination last round as a, there were two other big allies apart from app and b, app was quite preoccupied with p3n - it was never going to go off and try sweeping others out of the T100 because that would have created the block against them that they were aiming to avoid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
You had been warning us about Kittenz looking to hit us, and ND announced that they had struck a deal with Norse/Faceless for a full NAP, while Norse were trying to FC one of our planets.
We were pissed with CT/ND/p3ng deciding to go for FAnG without discussing it, and telling us to go "gal raid" meanwhile you were all feeding on their roids for some moral/growth.
|
As much as ND agreeing with norse might be annoying was not your annoyance over the FAnG thing partially for the same reason; you had an agreement (some kind of fort avoid) with them so could not join in fully. Yes the decision over hitting them was made quite late but ultimately as it was done to help the block I dont see the problem with it. There were several things you could have done to help out including hitting individual FAnG's or gals with individual FAnGs in which you chose not to do. Perhaps it could have been done more sensitively; 2 allies hit FAnG, 2 keep ult occupied perhaps? To avoid it being unfair this could have been reversed the next day. You could have proposed such a constructive course rather than storming out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
My theory is that it will be less tempting to actualy attempting to stay as a "small tag" if the bigger tags can just take you down using quanity over quality.
If BowS was 80 members and p3ng was 40 members we could easily just get you fleeted by throwing raids at you.
If being a small tag is less sustainable with heavy incs it will be less favourable.
|
We have seen numerous times from both fl and norse that small tags can cause real problems for a bigger tag. I am unsure that your reasoning would stand up to scruitiny. In most rounds where a balance of power is operating the small tags can if they wish just gal raid and let the top tags fight each other. In such a universe it is pretty tempting to be in a small tag for the easy life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
Also, its much easier to organize a block with 2 big alliances instead of 5 smaller ones, as the most alliances have their own initial deals and their own agenda, so keeping it together is harder.
|
This is certainly true. But that is not really the problem. We believe that you wont get to the point of having those big tags as ppl wont join it. Instead you will legitimise Ult's outsized tag and put nothing there to stop it. In order for the tag to be filled some old allies would need to disband or merge, is this likely to happen?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
Unless you have a relay bot that keeps delivering messages to munkee, how the heck would he know what was at all times in the "block channel" as he wasnt in there?
|
Um eh? Londo simply stated the reason why we went after FAnG. This was made public knowledge in munkee's mails. We usually explain why we are targeting an alliance to our members by mail, or through a vote.