[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Methedrine

The point of your point c is? You are describing common alliance organisation here and to my knowledge that is nothing special. Feel free to enlighten me more about this.

You were claiming its just a cooperation, my point C proves that an extended attack cooperation infact is an alliance if you set enough rules and preparations in it both start to mean the same.

First it was a block, now it got reduced to a cooperation, interesting to watch your wording here, Razorback. However, I do agree that it would be a sad thing for the game if a cooperation or block would have been formed just for the aim to destroy one alliance - however, as I noticed in my previous threads and in a few others, it is especially 1Up and FAnG members which seem to be unable to behave in public and thus create a lot of disliking towards themselves.

You might notice i used " " and was using your phrase- About Fang members and 1up members i cant comment since im neither of both.

Or, from a different point of view, the level of complaining is the key. 2 of those 3 named alliances have ruined round 10.5 with an overpowered block, now you just throw in an alliance with a lot of members as a third partner and try to create some sympathy for the #1 alliance, drawing a picture of 1Up being holy knights in shiny white armour which are opposing a huge big bad evil enemy. This somehow reminds me on the cold war back in those days since it worked completely the same there, propaganda-wise. One side creates a foe image and tries to get as many people on their side as possible in order to overwhelm the chosen one.

The 3rd alliance (Rock) hasnt denied the accusations yet and we all still hold our breath for the proof (including myself). Undisputable fact (if you remove your tainted sunglasses) 1up so far has kept their ground even against "the odds" and against a possible cooperation. 1up was picked on for going solo and for proposing that, i havent yet seen one of the loudmouths. i.e. rumad and others apologizing for their missinterpretation considering half the round is nearly over.

It is actually not utopian, it is one option. I think 1Up's aim is to win round 11, thus they would just need to eliminate all possible threats to the #1 rank. There are currently only 3 threats:
1) LCH
2) [VsN] if they have support from other alliances
3) MISTU if they have support from other alliances

No shit sherlock. 1up wants to win the round, they said so from day 1. However you missinterpret the universe abit. Every alliance or cooperation of alliances can be a threat for the #1 alliance, no matter if the #2 or #3 are allies, friends, neutrals or enemies. If you get most of the beating someone else can overtake you surfing in the silent waters.

Thus you would need to hit LCH primarily, and if MISTU or [VsN] get support you hit those 2 specific alliances in order to keep them on distance to yourself, size and score wise that is.
If you think it is utopian then it simply is because you consider it as utopian, after all fiction will always be fiction if you don't try to make it real.

Thats not entirely correct and show you have not spend must time controlling or planning for a successfull alliance (no personal dig). Attacking the strongest enemy is not the easiest or best way to win, there are many more and many easier options to deal with such a problem. Alot also depends on what your enemies and the rest of the universe do. Wasting your breath and strength on an equally strong enemy while you are primarily hit by 5 other alliances would certainly not bring much gain for you. Especially not if the #2 doesnt reply and just defends and attacks someone weaker in return. Just to name 1 example.