So many fools...

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Cayl

Isn't there some Sun Tzu quote about winning before the round starts?

Also see: r3, r5, r7, r9, r11, Poland 1939, France and the lowlands 1940, The American Civil war.

[Brimstone]

There is a difference between "Blocking" to take out another alliance, and several alliances mutually but independantly deciding to hit known 1up targets.

Eg, if [VsN], MISTU, NewDawn and LCH alone all turned their attention to 1up targets, if (and i know this is technically impossible, but nm that) thats 350-400 planets attacking just 100.

Now i have the utmost respect for 1up, and what they have achieved here. They threw down the gauntlet to challenge all alliances single handedly, and their winning. I wont say they have won, as it's been proved before that with rankings that close in the T4 alliances anything could happen.

I know it is a fairly poor example, but if in WW2 one of the allied countries or Russians had sat back and waited for one of the other to strike back, then we would with all likely hood all be german by now.
Instead, they struck back. Co-ordination was not required, simply the act of nations pounding the hell out of a single target defeated them.

What i WILL do, right here, right now Formally is to ask those HC of alliances that happen to read this thread. 1up have challenged you, and as yet you have not risen to the challenge.

The general feeling i get, is that YES 1up have done brilliant so far, and YES the other alliances have either tried to take them single handedly, or have sat back and let them win, and that people are waiting for someone to officially start a war.

Well im starting one. I have no alliance, i have no interest in who wins or who looses. Im not asking anyone to block. I Simply want to see an interesting game, and that right now im looking at a group of people argueing over wheither an alliance has won a round before its ended, or begun. If all you do is sit here and DEBATE the issue, then yes 1up will win.

Get your HC butts moving and see about adding some more challenging targets to your daily raids.
If you aint a HC, then go badger your HC into adding some 1up targets.

Brimstone

[Tis]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

His exampel is perfectly valid.
You lose.

P.S I hope you arent going to teach any kids.

I seem to recall there being a couple others on the German side..... they didnt call it a world war for nothing. Id expect someone who names himself after a russian general to know that much at least... but then, the soviet take on history didnt go in much for things like facts and accuracy, so maybe its a actually pretty good fit for you.

His point is only valid in that the loser didnt 'win', something Id have agreed with anyway. His example is just rubbish.

[Tis]

Originally Posted by Brimstone

people are waiting for someone to officially start a war.

Well im starting one.

How dare you!

Forest! He is stealing your job!

[Forest]

oi ffs, im not having that!

[JonnyBGood]

Today AD taught me that the Nazis really did win World War Two.





O shit.

[Cayl]

Originally Posted by Brimstone

There is a difference between "Blocking" to take out another alliance, and several alliances mutually but independantly deciding to hit known 1up targets.

glad we've established that

Eg, if [VsN], MISTU, NewDawn and LCH alone all turned their attention to 1up targets, if (and i know this is technically impossible, but nm that) thats 350-400 planets attacking just 100.

What would you say about an effective nap and shared attack channel between 3 or so alliances? Wouldn't that make your scenario just a little more.... efficient? But NAP+Shared Attack channel is too much to type, there should really be a word for it... let's see... NAPSA? No... how about Block, yes, that has a certain ring to it....

*snip*

I know it is a fairly poor example, but if in WW2 one of the allied countries or Russians had sat back and waited for one of the other to strike back, then we would with all likely hood all be german by now.
Instead, they struck back. Co-ordination was not required, simply the act of nations pounding the hell out of a single target defeated them.

By this do you mean the US leaping to Poland's aid in 1939? Or perhaps you are referring to the time France didn't get taken over in 1940 because the US was there already?

You also must be referring to the curious historical fact that the US, UK, and USSR never talked to each other or coordinated military operations at all, and totally ignored Italy and Japan to focus on the Germans.

Honestly, if you're from the US, please don't admit it on the boards, it wouldn't be fair for my country to get a bad rap because you fell asleep in every history class you've ever been forced to sit through.

What i WILL do, right here, right now Formally is to ask those HC of alliances that happen to read this thread. 1up have challenged you, and as yet you have not risen to the challenge.

The general feeling i get, is that YES 1up have done brilliant so far, and YES the other alliances have either tried to take them single handedly, or have sat back and let them win, and that people are waiting for someone to officially start a war.

Well im starting one. I have no alliance, i have no interest in who wins or who looses. Im not asking anyone to block. I Simply want to see an interesting game, and that right now im looking at a group of people argueing over wheither an alliance has won a round before its ended, or begun. If all you do is sit here and DEBATE the issue, then yes 1up will win.

Get your HC butts moving and see about adding some more challenging targets to your daily raids.
If you aint a HC, then go badger your HC into adding some 1up targets.

Brimstone

The general feeling I get is that you're not in an alliance so you have no idea whats going on since nobody's spelling it out for you on the boards. I would suggest you get on IRC and start making friends in #public, #lch, #vision, #mistu and #planetarion. You might also try news scanning the top 10 planets now and again for interesting battle reports.

The boards are for arguing and debate, if you don't want that, hop back into the game and look for your action there, you won't find a play-by-play here. Sorry.

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Brimstone

I know it is a fairly poor example, but if in WW2 one of the allied countries or Russians had sat back and waited for one of the other to strike back, then we would with all likely hood all be german by now.
Instead, they struck back. Co-ordination was not required, simply the act of nations pounding the hell out of a single target defeated them.

Coordination was not required ?

hmm
So the US didnt deliver supplies since 1940 to the nations in the war ?
The Russians did not coordinate with the other allies for a "2nd front" or respective a 3rd?
Britain and the US did not work together with multiple nations in the fight for africa, the landing in sicilia and last but not least in d-day ?

My friend you have no clue about ww2 at all so dont post about it and better read a book or 2 instead of wasting our time with your totally deluded view of history or some crap you have read on the backside of your milkpackage or seen in one of the lightweight tv-shows.

Any kind of war in human history included treaties-pacts and agreements. There was not a single multination or multitribe war whcih went down without politics or coordination.

The spirit to hit the same enemy brings always the tought "why not teamup while we are on it" on the same foot. Which will again, lead to blocks. Worldwars are the perfect example of blocks, like the coldwar aswell.

[lokken]

Cooperation is happening, just not to a high enough level, and with an insufficient strategy - if they had a half decent one, stopped hitting each other and actually put total focus on hitting 1up, they'd be pretty much shagged into the middle of next week - retals are a luxury, and right now if they are to win they need to be far more focused in who they hit, and in what way. But that isn't happening. Blocking to take out a superior (albeit smaller) enemy must be done with complete focus, with total cooperation, and some kind of plan/strategy. That isn't happening at this point in time, as 1up are outperforming their numerical advantage (which they need to make better use of). No one should treat blocking as a dirty word as long as they realise it's a temporary thing, because it's sometimes necessary to help you win.

Oh and comparing history to planetarion is bad dont do it kids

[Forest]

I would consider leaving 1up to lead the fight against 1up \o/

Btw Lokken, did u see our ground has been authed, and starts in october

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Forest

I would consider leaving 1up to lead the fight against 1up \o/

Btw Lokken, did u see our ground has been authed, and starts in october

Good news innit.

[JonnyBGood]

I was going to post this in drunkenviking's thread but it appears he has deleted it. ****ed if I've wasted twenty minutes of my life writing it though.

Originally Posted by DrunkenViking

ofc it can be seen from 2 sides:
1) 1up's side(around 100 ppl)
2) LCH, VsN, MISTU, ND, HR, Rock, WP, ToF, FAnG, NoS, Veneratio, Deadly, Insomnia, SWaRM, coven, F-Crew, Bruderschaft, ARS, Norwegian Alliy, Tide of Darknes etac etc's side(somewhere above 2000 ppl)

this post was directed at the leaders of those 2000 ppl

Just because your side has more people doesn't mean that any suggestion it comes up with is automatically right. The point is that the claim of inherent bias on the part of 1up members due to the fact they're #1 can easily be logically reapplied so that we have the new statement that all non-1up members are inherently biased due to the fact they're not 1up members. I'm sure it'd work out fairly well from your perspective (in the short term at least) if all of 1up's roids were redistributed to everyone else but that doesn't mean it's the best option to take.

If we're going to accept the claim that everyone in the winning alliance will prefer the political situation of whatever round they're in with no real proof beyond "aha you just like having lots of roids you evil scum!" we may as well give up on AD now (because we haven't done that already rite?) Many people in the top alliances (in previous rounds) have stated that they disliked something in the political situation of each particular round, and some (albeit fewer) people who weren't winning have stated they enjoyed something, politically speaking, when they weren't winning.

Frankly I support blocking at the minute. In about six-seven days (if current trends continue) 1up will have the combined roid total of both the #2 and #3 alliances and any vaguely realistic attempt to dislodge them will have to involve a high-degree of co-operation. Looking back at the start of the round one wonders what exactly happened. Did sid badly outplay all of you by having better members in his alliance? If that's not the main condition for being the deserved winners of a round of PA what is? Perhaps more excitement is required, I doubt 1up being off the top-spot for about eight seconds really counts as excitement. It some alternative method of alliance co-operation be arranged? Maybe Pateam (in their unbiased wisdom) should organise a few comparative blocks, FAnG and MISTU versus LCH and WP versus VsN and ND versus 1up and ROCK?

Let's face facts, most people don't have a buggering clue what they want from a round of PA. Well certain people claim they have goals but mostly those are just masses of conflicting and contradictory opinions on what makes the game great. After many years (oh good god) of reading AD I've concluded that the best of all worlds is a universe which starts off with no alliance allied* to any other but quickly develops temporary* blocks to prevent any alliance from gaining a meaningful* lead over the rest, that any alliance can attack any other in a noticeable* way, that no attacks are too difficult* to defend against unless they're exceedingly clever and well-worked out*, that the political situation is kept interesting* without outside interference* from pateam, that people who can't put in as much time and effort* as others should be helped but not to the point where it makes putting in time and effort pointless*, and that in the end somehow the most skilled* alliance wins. As well as this nobody associated with either fury or ldk should be allowed to win.

[*none of these terms are defined objectively.]

When sid made his announcement I'm sure the skepticism monitor in most peoples' minds hit about 105%, I know it did in mine. Then I thought about it. Suppose at the end of the round he comes out and tells everyone how badly you were owned by his sneaky plan to level the political field so that the most militarily capable, dedicated and well-organised alliance almost had to win. Personally my response would be "..........so what? You did it when there were more planets, more alliances and better alliances. This round has accomplished nothing new from this point of view."

Perhaps this round is the metaphorical throwing down of the gauntlet. "We're this good. Now you try and beat us." I rather doubt it's "aha we're gr8, now make a big block where you couldn't lose if you had all the intelligence of my goldfish and **** us for eight weeks!" Maybe everyone will love next round. Maybe mammals of the family suidae really will pursue aeronautical activities.

[Kjeldoran]

I don't see why alliances such as my own should even get involved in who's gonna win the round. I honnestly don't care whether it's 1up or LCH or another alliance. Hence I'm not gonna join any block against any alliance because I simply don't see the benefits in it for myself and my alliance.

I do know that some other alliance HC's share this vision with me. Why should we even waste a single ship to try and waste 1up? For all I care, they won and the round ended 1 month ago for, when I left on vacation.

This isn't our war and tbh should be posted on a private forum of which only 1up, LCH, mistu and vision have access to, cause they are the only alliances who have a chance on winning (allthough I don't give a single dime for any of those alliainces but 1up for the victory).

[DrunkenViking]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I was going to post this in drunkenviking's thread but it appears he has deleted it. ****ed if I've wasted twenty minutes of my life writing it though.

sorry about that, didnt see the thread going anywhere.

Just because your side has more people doesn't mean that any suggestion it comes up with is automatically right.

i sencerely hope you dont think that little of me. Ofc no desicion will ever be "the right one". However, 1 desicion can be what i favour. tbh, i dont care if 1up, lch or vsn wins as long as the winner dont end the round 3 times the size of the #2 alliance. Again, my opinion.

And to Kj, accepting that "your members"(define as you want, i know you're not directly in charge nemore) are being pwnd day after day and ppl leaving for other alliances to experience more action, says more about you and what you think of the fangers.

Simple meaning behind my thred was this:
I got the impression that every alliance is now attacking down the foodchain(with a couple exceptions) and the round has/is stagnating. If it's right to block and even scores again, i dont know, if i'm gonna bother to play my account the remaining of the round under current/soontobefuture situation, i dont know.

Thanks for moving the discussion over in this thread, as the thread i made was mabe by a fool and was foolish. Public debate about blocking is allways foolish. Last words i'll say on the matter.

edit: little addon, what i loved about universe was blocking, deblocking, backstabbing and what i'll generally call great fun. maybe a reason for my views/opinions.

[Forest]

Originally Posted by DrunkenViking

Thanks for moving the discussion over in this thread, as the thread i made was mabe by a fool and was foolish.

hehe


I miss the old declarations of wars, and enemies backstabbing each other.
Early in the game, (r2-4) i remember lots of allies backstabbing each other, lots of threads in this board claiming 'they will kill u when they have no use for u' etc.

Slowly over the rounds, some kind of honour seems to of taken place, in which agreements stick for round after round, and I think the game is poorer for that.

[Slinky]

Originally Posted by Forest

hehe


I miss the old declarations of wars, and enemies backstabbing each other.
Early in the game, (r2-4) i remember lots of allies backstabbing each other, lots of threads in this board claiming 'they will kill u when they have no use for u' etc.

Slowly over the rounds, some kind of honour seems to of taken place, in which agreements stick for round after round, and I think the game is poorer for that.

I don't think it's 'honour' moreover, with private galaxies and such shared channels/battlegroups that the blocks had, more of a case of it would be far too much of a headache to split up effectively and if they did it would be the weakest alliance cast off which again would serv for a couple of days of humour, then stagnate again.

Too many people PA was back to the old days, a state which can never be re-lived, there's TOO much strategy, too much political intrigue and too many established methods of play to go back to R1/2/3/4 play where people were running around like headless chickens and u were lucky if any of your galaxy even knew what IRC was. Anyone sticking around for the just in case factor is going to be sorely dissapointed.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by DrunkenViking

And to Kj, accepting that "your members"(define as you want, i know you're not directly in charge nemore) are being pwnd day after day and ppl leaving for other alliances to experience more action, says more about you and what you think of the fangers.

Viking, I think you missunderstood me. First of all, when I say my alliance I mean the alliance I am a part of. I'm not directly in charge like r10 idd, I'm only part of an HC team.

Nway, We've shown in allmost every round we played, that unlike some alliances, we always do put up a fight and pple joining our alliance will have alot of action during their stay.
This round however, due to several (already mentionned) reasons, we got kicked out of the picture very early on with no hope to play a part in the top rankings of this round.

I wouldn't just assume things of me Viking, I wouldn't draw some poor excuses just because I stated in my previous post.

rgds Kj

[Crazeh]

You're all full of shit

1up has already won this round, and if you can't see it, that just reflects more to the reason they won!

The way xp works, the entire universe could gang up on 1up, but at this point, with the lead they have, taking all their roids and most their ships, they will still have the most score, thus be #1 on rankings, thus be #1.

and, since all competence & able leaders of any organization skill are already in 1up, not much to be done, now roll over and play dead, you lost, 1up won, move on!

Well Played 1up

[Shaithess]

Also, Crazeh, the fact they're so much bigger means you could get an inordinate amount of XP for roiding them

Also, for each roid taken, the score is caught up by more than double what the roid is worth (1up lose a roid, one of the enemies gain it, plus they gain XP). So yes, if people were more organised and constantly hit 1up, it would be possible to defeat them...

[Seth Mace]

Originally Posted by Forest

Slowly over the rounds, some kind of honour seems to of taken place, in which agreements stick for round after round, and I think the game is poorer for that.

Yeah maybe so but i think its also to do with established alliances wanting to ensure their public perception is maintained throughout the rounds, not wanting to achieve short-term benifits at the expense of future circumstances.

Back to your comment on honour, i think PA has a highly matured sense of whats right and wrong (which is funny for a war game but understable from a political pov) for a webpage based game. The danger of "public" lashback due to a dis-honourable action could be costly for any alliance.

i.e. If information arose implying 1up was doing something morally incorrect for most alliances to swollow, regardless of their current strength; those 2k planets vs 100 would certainly decrease their chances of #1.

PA is so close to real life war & politics nowadays, you dare not attack anybody without the blessing & understanding of the wider community! Especially those AD media wh0res;P

/me waits for a smear campaign to unite the universe against 1up;P

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Tis

I seem to recall there being a couple others on the German side..... they didnt call it a world war for nothing. Id expect someone who names himself after a russian general to know that much at least... but then, the soviet take on history didnt go in much for things like facts and accuracy, so maybe its a actually pretty good fit for you.

His point is only valid in that the loser didnt 'win', something Id have agreed with anyway. His example is just rubbish.

HEH. And the italians contributed alot, didnt they.
HELLO CLUELESS.

P.S Zhukov was a Field Marshal, thats a 5-star general idiot.

[Forest]

It is idd ppl not wanting to ruin future rounds, but im off the belief that we should play each round afresh, and every alliance should aim for #1. Shame that belief isnt shared amongst others :/

Not enough alliances are willing to actually fight for #1, and are willing to accept #2/3 or whatever, and it cant be good for a game, when alliances are willing to give up on #1 to secure a decent position without too much risk.
I guess though, thats due to lack of numbers, and lack of planets is not really something that politics can help.

The thing to make the universe more fun = more planets, as we all know, but the community in itself isnt willing to be flexible enough to achieve that.
Im seeing changes around, for instance 1up recruiting ppl who have previously not played this game, but have come over to pa as a group, and the community schemes set up by alch and others, I just hope it isnt too late.

/me lets u all go back on topic

[Gerbie]

Originally Posted by Forest

It is idd ppl not wanting to ruin future rounds, but im off the belief that we should play each round afresh, and every alliance should aim for #1. Shame that belief isnt shared amongst others :/

Not enough alliances are willing to actually fight for #1, and are willing to accept #2/3 or whatever, and it cant be good for a game, when alliances are willing to give up on #1 to secure a decent position without too much risk.
I guess though, thats due to lack of numbers, and lack of planets is not really something that politics can help.

The thing to make the universe more fun = more planets, as we all know, but the community in itself isnt willing to be flexible enough to achieve that.
Im seeing changes around, for instance 1up recruiting ppl who have previously not played this game, but have come over to pa as a group, and the community schemes set up by alch and others, I just hope it isnt too late.

/me lets u all go back on topic

I think the fact that alliances are willing to settle for less then #1 can be good. This round we all knew there was a very limited group of alliances that had a chance to end #1 on their own (actually there was a pretty broad concensus of what alliance had the best chances). Alliances settled for less then #1. If they hadn't then they would have no other choice but to block from tick 1 on. I'm gratefull they did not choose to go for #1 that way.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

HEH. And the italians contributed alot, didnt they.
HELLO CLUELESS.

P.S Zhukov was a Field Marshal, thats a 5-star general idiot.

One imagines his point concerned the Japanese who really should be included in most people's history of World War Two. ANYWAYS.........

[alch]

Alliance should have one objective, to take down the alliance who is 1 position on top of this alliance, which mean if you are alliance 24 you will take alliance 23, just to see your alliance ranking going up, this is a true nature of competition and its acceptable by all mean, combine this natural stage with private war, ego war, some counter war, and some war for fun, you have a chaos where politics are here to stabilize the situation and let the situation play in your favor.

i would like to say that in my pa experience i had so far, i learned that you should aim always for the top and never stay where you are, it can be in a one round stage or in a 3 round stage, never accept a stability or going down the ranks, i am against what kjeldoran just said, such a war would benefit your alliance, as you could always use the fact you are the underdog (which give you much power), and organize some raid, also if it would be to send bigger alliance after the hard nuts that 1up is imposing and then send your ships after the easy and soft roids, it would give you the fact that you will go up the rank, get more roids instead of loosing, it will boost morale among the members, will stabilize your HCs position and give a little bit to your political influence.

of course many will say that some alliance are playing for the fun, if your alliance is playing for the fun and just attacking randomaly without any objective and any other thing, then i am sure you will get less fun than if you would have some objective to complete (not have to be to win the round, because alliance out of top10 cant put a unrealistic objective, but it can be first round we go into top10 then the next round into top3 then round3 we take the lead of the universe)

once you will take roids and the morale boost in your ranks, you will find it more easy to recruit more people and to kick the dead wood who are at the moment paralyzing your alliance and making your HC and officer suffering, i hate to say this but at the moment i see some renegades in your alliance wasting the fun of another 50 peoples.

you guys have 1 month to go, to declare war and to loose sometime or to win and get some roids in your ranks or in your enemy rank will bring the round more interesting issue, by seeing 1up taking the lead and not fighting you will see the no1 an unreal target and no one will attack them anymore, as no alliance will want to take lead of the universe, it will lead the other alliances and players in lower alliance to be targeted more and more to get free roids for middle alliances in help to stabilize their ranks and it will lead for the smaller players and also for the bigger aswell to come to AD and whine that the round is not fun and that 1up spoiled their round, which is in fact not true at all, 1up played well, took the lead and even securize the lead for at least 2 weeks, but some interesting war can still be going on and make this round a blockless and fun war.

if you guys give up on #1, then there is no need to fight anymore and we can end the round because the majority of this game is based on being #1 and "rule the universe" as i state the jolt and AS old advertisment, its a war game and its doenst mean we wont be one community, but in order to keep this game fun, continue to fight, and when you are in normal channel such as #planetarion or #PA, give up your weapon an lets sit together as one community,

good luck to all.
well played 1up.

[General Martok]

Alch, I doubt Kjeldoran meant he isn't willing to fight. He only refuses to fight against the #1 allaince while fang is #10, and thats quite understandable. It would be smarter if they target ToF and/or WP, and try to work their way up. That way you get your fight, but no fight against impossible odds, and one with a perspective of getting a result within a decent timeframe. why would you be the lapdog of the alliances with the highest interest of taking down 1up?

[alch]

i was meaning, that as an alliance HC, he should take part of the actions around, making sure that people would target alliance1 to 8 and leaving the easy rock on alliance 9 for alliance 10, that a whole tactic where you are sending on the big dog enough fire to make sure you are not worried about any more incommings.

But on other hands, i feel the last days that peopl e in FAnG are no longer willing to fight, attack are made once a week sometimes and people are not attacking together and have not the spirit they had at the begining of the round.

[Forest]

Originally Posted by Gerbie

I think the fact that alliances are willing to settle for less then #1 can be good. This round we all knew there was a very limited group of alliances that had a chance to end #1 on their own (actually there was a pretty broad concensus of what alliance had the best chances). Alliances settled for less then #1. If they hadn't then they would have no other choice but to block from tick 1 on. I'm gratefull they did not choose to go for #1 that way.

I disagree to some extent with this. If ppl had blocked against the #1 alliance, and when they wree down, broke and fought each other, that would of been fine.

IMO there is nothing wrong with blocks. The problem occurs when blocks refuse to break, for wahtever reason.

Leave it a couple of hundred ticks, and as soon as someone is pulling away, make actions to be #1.

For instance, 1up are #1.
Mistu SHOULD of co-operated closer with Vision, therefor bringing 1up down to #4, then mistu/vision automatically go to war, (in a perfect world of course),

[Cayl]

Zhukov, while I normally find your posts to be utterly beneath reply, I'm bored, so I'll do my one post of community service for the day trying to bludgeon something like the rules of logic or normal conversation into your head.

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

HEH. And the italians contributed alot, didnt they.
HELLO CLUELESS.

Nobody made any evaluations on the contribution of any nation over another, so I'm not really sure what you're contesting with your sarcastic comment and gratuitous insult.

Surely we can name many blocks in the past that have had worthless member alliances in them.

P.S Zhukov was a Field Marshal, thats a 5-star general idiot.

Thats what he said right? A Russian general? Can you please clarify why you feel justified calling him an idiot?

[Axis_WLF]

I think cause he said general instead of FM.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Axis_WLF

I think cause he said general instead of FM.

In russia you'd get shot for making such a capital mistake !!!

[Cayl]

Oh I thought maybe he was saying Zhukov was a Field Marshal, which in Russian means "5-star General Idiot" ... that would seem to match his online persona

[Tis]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

P.S Zhukov was a Field Marshal, thats a 5-star general idiot.

Because you are clearly expertly qualified to make distinctions between two translations of the same russian word...

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Tis

Because you are clearly expertly qualified to make distinctions between two translations of the same russian word...

It was you who started the "lets be 100% clear and correct game". Sadly you couldnt finish it.

P.S Cayl, you bore me.

[Duke Leto]

It warms the cockles to see the same debates being made over somewhat polar ideologies of a history long past... a planetarion gestalt shift if you will...


lol...


It never was about the number of planets or members, or alliances... it was never about strength nor honor.... it was all about the politics... may the strongest alliance win?

No.... never never....

May the best politician win....


Leto
hirr Diety of canned cheese

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

HEH. And the italians contributed alot, didnt they.
HELLO CLUELESS.

P.S Zhukov was a Field Marshal, thats a 5-star general idiot.

If you correct him dont forget countries like romania, italy, japan, or the many "freelancer-soldiers" the german army had (Division Viking, Flamen, Ukraine etc etc). Alongside countries like spain (supportive - neutral).

Country numberwise was the differences between the 2 blocks not too significant, while overall quality and ressourcewise clearly played towards allies advantage.

Zhukovs titles were more or less administrative nature during his career. He usually was in the function of a chief of staff of a regional frontline. Eventho this wasnt directly connected to a military title it was the rank of a general. All further promotions were just "titles" for a man who had already achieved everything in a commanding career. It peaked in the marshal title after the german defeat in stalingrad and lateron in the post war appointment as a minister of defence in the Khrushchev era.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Razorback

If you correct him dont forget countries like romania, italy, japan, or the many "freelancer-soldiers" the german army had (Division Viking, Flamen, Ukraine etc etc). Alongside countries like spain (supportive - neutral).

Country numberwise was the differences between the 2 blocks not too significant, while overall quality and ressourcewise clearly played towards allies advantage.

Zhukovs titles were more or less administrative nature during his career. He usually was in the function of a chief of staff of a regional frontline. Eventho this wasnt directly connected to a military title it was the rank of a general. All further promotions were just "titles" for a man who had already achieved everything in a commanding career. It peaked in the marshal title after the german defeat in stalingrad and lateron in the post war appointment as a minister of defence in the Khrushchev era.

Obviously you forgot to mention that he was born on the 2nd of December 1896 in Stelkovka. Next time Focht, atleast try to be abit more uptodate about the things you post !!!

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Duke Leto

It warms the cockles to see the same debates being made over somewhat polar ideologies of a history long past... a planetarion gestalt shift if you will...


lol...


It never was about the number of planets or members, or alliances... it was never about strength nor honor.... it was all about the politics... may the strongest alliance win?

No.... never never....

May the best politician win....


Leto
hirr Diety of canned cheese

Wel 1up definitely have te best politics atm

proclaiming if anyone beats them they are still the winners and scaring everone into not fully blokcing and co ordinating because if hey don't they are so so bad.

Sill one day ppl might realise that dynamic blocking as long as is recycled is good for the game

Nice to see yu btw leto I hope you are good buddy, read your pm

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Rumad

Sill one day ppl might realise that dynamic blocking as long as is recycled is good for the game

Only problem in this one is that dynamic blocking is pure utopia and has never happened before and most likely never will happen.

The block who found the strength to take out the #1 will not fully break apart ( " we dont want to be next" or "we made good friends with them") so debating over and over how much such an impossible situation might be better over the current system (random with no blocking but 1 clear winner in the end) is moot and only feeds those who argue for the sake of the argument but not for the aim to find a solution.
Wakeys idea to fight the guy directly above you to increase your own position seems more likely and would atleast give constant wars and constant conflict for all parties.
In this case the winner is unimportant as its "just 100 players" in the longrun so the rest of the universe can still play their own game, even if the winner is already decided. This will move the point of stagnation further into the end of the round and in all honesty atm we only see those complaining who are actually enjoying the politics game more than the ship and roid part.

A logical suggestion would be to look into the length of the rounds. So far every round had 2-3 weeks stagnation at the end of the round. This is not only ruled by politics but also by ingame mechanics and by the limited size of players. So maybe a decreased roundlength (and also a faster rematch) would help to make single winners without boring the rest to death.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Razorback

Only problem in this one is that dynamic blocking is pure utopia and has never happened before and most likely never will happen.

You could ave stopped at the point I have stopped at the quote above and I would have agreed with you. The trouble is all to do with mentality though. In realiy it should be that way and then people would alwas continue to play. Ofcourse people would use different tactics to lower there score, but its the healthy thing for PA.

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Rumad

You could ave stopped at the point I have stopped at the quote above and I would have agreed with you. The trouble is all to do with mentality though. In realiy it should be that way and then people would alwas continue to play. Ofcourse people would use different tactics to lower there score, but its the healthy thing for PA.

what are you trying to say rumad, you make no sense.....

[DrunkenViking]

didnt a huge so called Xeta/misc block break after making FLVT dust in r6? then misc napped FLVT and backstabbed Xeta? Is that an utopia that has never happened or was i dreaming or?
(ofc, Xeta was smaller than the misc block, buty not in such regards as we've seen in other rounds)

also, if i remember all wrong, just disregard my post and dont give it a second thought.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Rumad

1) You could ave stopped at the point I have stopped at the quote above and I would have agreed with you.

2) The trouble is all to do with mentality though.

3) In realiy it should be that way and then people would alwas continue to play. Ofcourse people would use different tactics to lower there score, but its the healthy thing for PA.

Since you seem to have a problem with understanding, I will take it section by section. Its colloquial english which is why you probably find it hard to understand (I am writing as I would speak it here) so I apologise for that.

1) I agreed with you. Yes I know your i shck but I did and I reckoned you need not have said anything else after that sentence.

2) The mentality of the players and HC that represent the players. (tell me if your getting confused yet).

3) The game should be played with dynamic blocks since then players would not give up as readily. Players would attempt to find ways around being the top dog if this was the wa the game was played (i.e. finding tactics to lower there score), but I believe thats good for pa.

Now if you need any further help just yell - I will work on a remedial version next time*

*PS this doesn't really change anyhing apart from a bit of structure, you really should read the post nex time before making such off hand comments.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by DrunkenViking

didnt a huge so called Xeta/misc block break after making FLVT dust in r6? then misc napped FLVT and backstabbed Xeta? Is that an utopia that has never happened or was i dreaming or?
(ofc, Xeta was smaller than the misc block, buty not in such regards as we've seen in other rounds)

also, if i remember all wrong, just disregard my post and dont give it a second thought.

Blocks weren't dynamc just te same blocks with different relationships.

Dynamic blocking would require alliances to break down ther current blocks and find new allies to recycle the growth.

PS this is a ver simplistic example and yes a utopian view, but what the hell it wuld be my idea of fun

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Rumad

Since you seem to have a problem with understanding, I will take it section by section. Its colloquial english which is why you probably find it hard to understand (I am writing as I would speak it here) so I apologise for that.

1) I agreed with you. Yes I know your i shck but I did and I reckoned you need not have said anything else after that sentence.

2) The mentality of the players and HC that represent the players. (tell me if your getting confused yet).

3) The game should be played with dynamic blocks since then players would not give up as readily. Players would attempt to find ways around being the top dog if this was the wa the game was played (i.e. finding tactics to lower there score), but I believe thats good for pa.

Now if you need any further help just yell - I will work on a remedial version next time*

*PS this doesn't really change anyhing apart from a bit of structure, you really should read the post nex time before making such off hand comments.

sorry i was abit puzzled from your typos and had a hard time understanding what you were on about.
2)The mentality of the hc or players doesnt matter, 5 foul eggs can ruin the round for many. Like shown before.
3) Isnt playing to be the top dog the aim of this game ? Or is it supposed to be "evading to be hit" ? Maybe i played the game in the wrong fashion and missed that part of tactic.

However blocks dont just "stop" and personal ties always increase the lenght of agreements alongside a look into the future.

@ Drunkenviking: what you are praising was nothing but a blocksplit. It had nothing to do with letting the other side regrow or finishing the task. Like many rounds before fractions of the huge winning block decided to give their own victory a go. R6 was all against furgion so naturally the only "change" was to ally with furgion vs the ones you wish to split off. Furgion was beaten tho many ppl rumored that if the round lasted longer there would have been a bigger comeback.
Tho the decision was not made out of greatitude or mercy but as a calculation to beat Xeta. Deus/FoS needed Furgion or the risk would have been that they would have been on the receiving end.

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Rumad

Blocks weren't dynamc just te same blocks with different relationships.

Dynamic blocking would require alliances to break down ther current blocks and find new allies to recycle the growth.

PS this is a ver simplistic example and yes a utopian view, but what the hell it wuld be my idea of fun

Blocks wouldnt be dynamic in any way or form. In your scenario a block of #2 till #6 forms to bash #1. when a new #1 is made they kick it from the block and stay together to finish this threat and take in the former #1.
In such a scenario playing medicore would be the key and positioning yourself in the top3 before the last week and then putting in major efford to make a end of round sprint ontop without fearing the retalliation of your own block.
How this would encourage players to try hard seems odd to me. Why would in your case the #2 try hard to beat down #1 if they can already predict they would be kicked form the block if they succeed since they become #1 ? And why would #4-6 want to leave the block, it gives them alot of attackpower - growthchances while would limit the incomings of the natural enemies in their area. Furthermore it would not matter for them who is in the top3 as they dynamically attack whoever is #1 regardless of personal agendas.
Alongside all these problems we have not covered the idea of the #1 maybe showing interest to block themself and to find willing followers which would lead back to the old scenarios we had in the previous rounds. Not to mention the fraction of personal dislikes and not everyone sharing the same goal aiding the image of "dynomic blocks" beeing a papertiger.

[Rumad]

it would help. Anything would help that destabilises the game,

Also you are assuming they would just throw one out and that would be the end of it. In reality a couple of allies would break together and fight it out. the ther couple If this would happen often enough (In a utopian world) it would dramatically help game play.

[ComradeRob]

Any pre-set political configuration is bad.

If people know that the #1 will be attacked by the #2-#6, then they will simply avoid becoming #1 until the last possible moment.

If the political situation becomes predictable, then it is very easy to exploit. In my opinion, politics should be as fluid as possible, and people should make their own minds up depending on their own circumstances, rather than listening to what other people tell them. If they want to form a block, they should do so. If they don't want to form a block then nobody should force them to.

Rumad - I'd like to know what you think was wrong with the game this round, particularly in comparison to the preceding round.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

In my opinion, politics should be as fluid as possible, and people should make their own minds up depending on their own circumstances, rather than listening to what other people tell them. If they want to form a block, they should do so. If they don't want to form a block then nobody should force them to.

I completely agree with that statement. Politics is something for each alliance to handle differently. There are no good or bad things when it comes to politics. Because any decent HC would do what suits their alliance the most. That it might get the hatred of other alliances on you, that's something I'd gladly take with it. After all, you are an HC for YOUR alliance, not for the community.

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

Any pre-set political configuration is bad.

Exactly, and wasnt Sids post an attempt to deny certain posible political configuration during the round?

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

If people know that the #1 will be attacked by the #2-#6, then they will simply avoid becoming #1 until the last possible moment.

If the political situation becomes predictable, then it is very easy to exploit. In my opinion, politics should be as fluid as possible, and people should make their own minds up depending on their own circumstances, rather than listening to what other people tell them. If they want to form a block, they should do so. If they don't want to form a block then nobody should force them to.

This is what me and others have been writing. See my above answer.

The very core of the discussion is weather Sids post was noble or a tactic used for winning.
Taking into Sids history, it would be extremly naive to say it was for nobility.

Focht, your close, I write you a pm about it.