View Single Post
Unread 29 Apr 2010, 11:53   #22
ellonweb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 401
ellonweb has a brilliant futureellonweb has a brilliant futureellonweb has a brilliant futureellonweb has a brilliant futureellonweb has a brilliant futureellonweb has a brilliant futureellonweb has a brilliant futureellonweb has a brilliant futureellonweb has a brilliant futureellonweb has a brilliant futureellonweb has a brilliant future
Re: Why Public/Privates don't work (at least this round)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monroe View Post
I think we are having in part a communication problem. My definition of a fortress galaxy is not the traditional one, where the galaxy is made up primarily of one ally. My definition of a fortress is a galaxy controlled by a single ally with a number of non ally members in the gal to help support the team (not necessarily primarily mind you).
I wasn't labelling them as fortresses (hence using quotations), I was simply reapplying the label you gave them:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monroe View Post
several "fortress" public galaxies have appeared (just look at the t10).
Nonetheless, what they're called is irrelevant. I'm simply trying to make the point that the illusion of these top ranked public galaxies being competitive is just that, an illusion.

And, in regards to the idea of creating a "real fortress" of CT members (using the term fortress in relation to Ascendancy style galaxies of the past rounds), as mz and others have said: fortresses are overrated, they're not a good tactic for alliances that don't have a high skill/activity level. No offence to CT, but you'd just be making yourselves an easy target (if any alliance specifically wanted to target you, which wouldn't be the case this round because there's bigger fish to fry).
ellonweb is offline   Reply With Quote