[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Razorback

most of your posts, in every thread you replied to contain a reference to your magnificant rl.
May it be the simple fact you are an accountant or that your kid is coming soon.
Go search for them yourself or ask other ppl who read these boards frequently.

OK I am going to ignore the above, but l will give you a helping hand. Flame me all you want, I don't care, but reply on the fatcs rather than trying to get this thread closed.

First reply as to you a few pages ago.

Originally Posted by Razorback

FAnG stated they went solo, however if they did break their promise they outright lied, right ?
I did not include any comparison in my first reply why 1up is better or worse, i just stated that certain ppl like rumad and others who ran their mouth are apparently proven wrong.

Originally Posted by Rumad

Erm pray tell where i was proven wrong?

I said I was wary of a blockless round and asked for firming up of the agreement.
None was forthcoming and I predicted it would end up the same. Blocked alliances.

The next part was that I also said that sid was using it for his own ends.
Thats pretty much true also with the avoidance of lch.

So where exactly was I proven wrong?

I also said FAnG would enter the round unallied, unless you are a moron you know that
DID happen. However contingencies are formed for a reason. Those contingent arrangements
would be to find allies to stop being bashed into the ground and after MISTU's support
last round FAnG would be senile to NOT support a old friend in a battle.

Next was my reply to sid without the bit that you seem to find contentious:

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.

Originally Posted by Rumad

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.

Originally Posted by Rumad

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?

Now your last set of replies

Originally Posted by Razorback

Has blocking occured ? thats something new, a few pages back you defended anything against 1up is not a block. Since 1up has not formed a block, how has blocking exactly occured ?

I said I didn't know if blocking had occured, but I was basically saying that co-operation as needed to ensure there survival. So yes blocking probably has occured and no its not that newer news. The real discussion is if its blocking in order to directly manipulate the round direction or whether its an alliance of convenience. I don't see much to contradict that this agreement will be in place longer than the playing field being levelled a bit.

Originally Posted by Razorback

How are you able to manipulate something in a long term view which can change any second with just 4 ppl agreeing ? To be blunt if you thought that sid would influence anyone who doesnt think it would be worth a try himself you are an idiot.

Not really and this is where this part of your arguments fall down. If what you say is true why did he actually try for blockless politics? If your view was consistent he would not have tried to bully politics in that direction. He had a set view on how he could manipulate the situation - if he didn't then he would never have suggested it. PA has had blocks us since round 3. Sid helped invent and develop blocks and now a sudden change of heart. I am sure enjoyment of laying went some way towards that but he also knew he would have a better chance and be able to "manipulate" politics a bit. Anything els is naivety on your part.

Originally Posted by Razorback

There is no perception in ignoring 3 planets in 1 raid and otherwise attacking and roiding an enemy. You wish to blow it up and construct a big conspiracy on 1 single incident, feel free. Yet again remember what i said about "knowing and having a clue" you lack both. Since you a) dont know 1ups tgting and b) base all your "facts" on rumors ppl spread. Have you any gals any info to backup your claims ? if not follow your own reply and once and for all stfu.

Thats funny focht in round four as bc for for legion I did exactly that type of attack and we DID ensure that all the alliances not attacked would not intervene.

By basically not attacking a planet you already know an agreement must be in place whether that is formal or informal. MI avoided my attacks on frucht and did not intervene because of a pre-attack agreement. Most gal mates would intervene if they can/could and that is right for a galaxies development.

I have a clue and i understand that by avoiding each other there has to be some form of agreement, I am not necessarily saying it is formal or that they share galaxy lists, just that they are "avoiding" each other.

I wont reply to the rest as its irrelevant

Stick to pertinent replies this time focht and not off the cuff flaming in an attempt to close the thread