Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Razorback
Did you even read this thread or was this a random reply?
|
It was a reply to Sid's initial post.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Razorback
a) Sid said that they were working together since before tickstart - before ticks = block ?
|
So Sid said so. If Sid says jump out of the window you would do it as well? Other alliance HC's have said they didn't block. And since nobody could so far prove the alliances assumed to have blocked are avoiding or did avoid each other (and thus exchanged coordinates at a very early point, during protection or even before ticks) I do not consider it as a block. A block works as one united force, which means you don't hit your partners. Anyways, time (and for example scans) will tell whether there was a block formed or not.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Razorback
b) Sid cant fear 1up wouldnt be strong enough to make it #1, they are already #1 and have been for awhile
|
I agree that my wording might not have been suitable for what I wanted to express with saying #3. Since you seem to have a problem understanding it I rephrased it in my original posting.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Razorback
c) If you give out targets to be hit and require all members to hit those targets exclusively or do retals, naturally it wouldnt matter if you are still free to hit your allies, since there are no fleets for that left anyways.
|
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.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Razorback
d) the concern is not alliances cooperating to take down the #1 but this "cooperation" formed pre round, not knowing who is #1 or who might aim for #1 (Fang planned to win this round as an example)
|
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.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Razorback
e) other alliances are hitting 1up aswell randomly or planned and noone is complaining about them, so the level of organisation is here the key.
|
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.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Razorback
f) your solution is abit utopian, hitting mistu brings no satisfaction and no change. Kill them and what? Will they magically stop harassing you ?
|
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
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.