Do attack groups play their alliances for fools?

[Parthos]

Scouse brought up an interesting point in another thread.

Originally posted by Scouse
Perhaps you should admit that you're an alliance and just become an 'Alliance' and stop trying to use other alliances as a means of getting defence?

It seems pretty obvious to me that your members care more for ‹ragons than their various alliances, and that they only actually have those alliances to get defence.

Same goes for Golden Circle (Gcircle) btw. One of the reasons I was "kicked" (I had kind of stopped going there after they attacked my gal; for some reason that left a bad taste in my mouth) from that "battlegroup" was for not having sent defense to bg members. I thought it was kind of odd that an attack group required members to send defense as well. Alliance? You decide.

The other reason was because I got lippy over my bg attacking my gal (I also found it odd that they'd weaken members' gals by attacking them so early in the round when loads of non-member/non-allied gals were still fat, go figure), and by members of it joining the leet p alliance and rather than work with me or other bg members to join that ally and thereby not have to worry about p conflicts, instead told me "you should exile asap."

It's weird that alliances accept members from these so-called battlegroups, which are really only dedicated to themselves (via attacking and defending within the bg [with mo's and everything]).

Seems they put up with it as they get sources to cover attacks with, but has anyone yet analyzed the drain they put on their "proper" alliances, and if that drain is worth the cost? BG's tend to defend their own first, and their own is usually composed of members of a variety of alliances, often including alliances unallied or even enemy to their own ally and even unallied members who choose to use the bg as their sole source of defense.

Where does one draw the line? Everyone has friends whom they prioritize defense for. I often do it myself; however I made sure most of my friends are in my alliance so there's not much conflict beyond doing the d backwards: ie, friend pm's and asks for d, you send it, then tell the officer in charge of running it what you sent.

Perhaps the line merely appears once that group of people begins acting like an alliance; by tagging their bg, by bragging about their bg and its exploits, by generally showing the public that they consider their bg to be their main "alliance." Should they then be held to alliance standards and told to go off and behave like one (not allowing membership in other alliances, etc.) or should they, due to their contributions to war efforts, be allowed to continue to coexist?

In addition, I've been part of several battle groups which were as the name implied; z0r being the most elite and successful of those. ie, groups of people getting together daily to hit targets given them by their alliances. z0r regularly countered gals with fleets out, stealing thousands of roids every night for the war effort and hitting 1 to 3 targets nightly. Defense was still done within peoples' respective alliances. So, a bg can be done cleanly; where members do have pride in their bg, but still act like proper members of their own alliance. Why then are bg's "allowed" to act like their own alliance, yet have members spread in other alliances throughout the universe?

[Lerxst]

Do attack groups play their alliances for fools?

To say it in a harsh way: they always did. That's why they were formed. To benefit from everything they can get. At the cost of others. That's the way this game works often

[hAl]

Some alliances should really be more aware of what their members are doing !!!

hAl

[Lupin]

depends of the battle group i think

[das_experiment]

Originally posted by Parthos



In addition, I've been part of several battle groups which were as the name implied; z0r being the most elite and successful of those. ie, groups of people getting together daily to hit targets given them by their alliances. z0r regularly countered gals with fleets out, stealing thousands of roids every night for the war effort and hitting 1 to 3 targets nightly. Defense was still done within peoples' respective alliances. So, a bg can be done cleanly; where members do have pride in their bg, but still act like proper members of their own alliance. Why then are bg's "allowed" to act like their own alliance, yet have members spread in other alliances throughout the universe?

Yes, i really agree with you.

Most battlegroups atm work outside their members alliances, and put their BGs infront of their ally.

So people senjd def to BG be4 sending to ally, and so on.

So imo BG, can be counted as alliances, atleast when they are as evolved as Dragons.

My BG isnt as strict as most others on def, but if some1 has incs ofc we defend him!


And in relation to z0r. I attacked with you people a few times in r7, and u were really first class.

Great leadeship, good attacks, and it all was coordinated and set up very well.(prime example of a good BG)

[Maddix]

My Fang gal mate told me they don't arrange attacks for their members - they are for defence only, kind of hard for their members to play very well without an attack group if this is really the case.

[das_experiment]

Originally posted by Maddix
My Fang gal mate told me they don't arrange attacks for their members - they are for defence only, kind of hard for their members to play very well without an attack group if this is really the case.

Original Battlegroups consisted of some1 setting up an atatck every night, and the members then coming to a specified room to claim. Nowadays they have loadsa chans set up, with def coordination happening frequently.


So yes, people need to join a BG to attack, just that many BGs nowadays does more for their members than just attack.

[WhiteSnake]

Dragons, OuZo, Critters, MPT, GC, DTA, from what I remember, do attacks and defenses. PA players found a way to get out of that "exclusive alliances" rules. These battle groups work like alliances, and many members give more attention to their battle groups than to their alliances.

I think its time for the alliances to filter those members, because they come to alliance only to gather defense, as they attack with bgroup, and defend whoever they want. They mean absolutely nothing to any alliance. HCs should meet and take a common decision on those.

[Maddix]

Originally posted by das_experiment
Original Battlegroups consisted of some1 setting up an atatck every night, and the members then coming to a specified room to claim. Nowadays they have loadsa chans set up, with def coordination happening frequently.


So yes, people need to join a BG to attack, just that many BGs nowadays does more for their members than just attack.

I am perfectly aware of how battle groups operate these days and yes in Fang members cases they need to join a battle group, but other alliance members do not.

[Doorsdown]

internal battle groups are nice and easy to regulate by an alliance but external have many diffrent allianceall in there an some friendy fire is bound to happen :-(

[Kjeldoran]

The old "battlegroup" or what the true and original meaning of the word in PA means doesn't exist anymore.
These days, BG's act more like alliances then as BG's. The main difference between alliances and BG's is defence imo. The BG you play with (hopefully) makes you big etc so you'll defend that BG and help your m8's there. BG's purely for attacking purposes might still exist IN THEORY but hardly in reality.

rgds Kj

[Banned]

How long until Dingo stops by and posts a nice, friendly 'I told you so'?

[ComradeRob]

After this round, I certainly won't be tolerating having members of my alliance as part of the pseudo-alliance BGs that seem to be so fashionable these days. That they detract from the power of the alliance is obvious, the benefits gained by the tight-knit attack group working together are outweighed by the fact that many BGs have more loyalty to themselves than to any alliance.

Alliances have to make a clear policy: either integrate BGs into the command structure of the alliance (in which case you're getting close to a wing system), or ban BGs altogether. Allowing BGs to exist outside of the direct control of the alliance gives the alliance the worst of both worlds - though it could be argued that it gives the BG members the best of both worlds.

I don't think there's any conscious effort to screw alliances over, I think the BGs simply play for themselves and their own interests. They are often tight-knit groups, slightly too small to exist as an indepedent alliance, with intense personal loyalty between members. This blinds them to the idea that they are doing anything 'wrong' - they're just playing PA with their friends like they would be in a private galaxy round. But in private galaxy rounds, galaxies are much more strictly controlled than BGs are, hence the difference.

As an aside, people will notice that LDK had many top members who were also in high-profile BGs, and it never seemed to hinder their success. BDB is in DTA, meddy and NaQ are in OuZo, and so on.

From what I have seen, LDK's members operate much more independently than members of other alliances. LDK sets up raids, runs defences and so on, but for the most part the members get on with doing their own thing. There's much less of a 'control freak' approach to the game. It could be argued that many of the things that upset old-fashioned alliances about BGs are simply not an issue if the alliance takes a more hands-off approach, and lets its members decide where they attack (so long as they do not attack allies ofc). My answer to this scenario is that it only works if you win. If you lose, you will find yourself cursing your lack of control over your alliance's planets, whereas if you win you simply never notice it.

[cypher]

Originally posted by Parthos
Scouse brought up an interesting point in another thread.

i stopped reading after this:P

but yes people do. heh

p.s. just read robs reply.... about ldk... and tbh:/ you're wrong but i cba explaining you know how to find out stuff if you want.

[Parthos]

Originally posted by cyphie
i stopped reading after this:P

You shouldn't have . I'm one of Scouse's biggest critics, having reported him for using 'brother' escorts in r8 and constantly harping on that fact (it seems fact to me thanks to numerous news scans at the time but I have to admit he was never closed for it). But when I see a good point made, I don't hold grudges and give credit where it's due

[ZoRlaC]

Interesting.

Now then, it seems as if you haven't got what Golden Circle is mainly about. It's defences. That it struck you as odd that a 'bg' would start having their members defend one another. Well.. Fine by me.

Golden Circle is a group of friends doing defences primarily. And the occasional attack. Many of the players in there have no alliance. Including myself.

Further more, It's late, and I'm 5minutes away from getting in a car to denmark. So I won't get to read your reply

Have a nice remaining summer

Btw; Sorry what happened earlier Parthos. Although I'm not aware of the circumstances.

- Zorlac

[Parthos]

Originally posted by ZoRlaC
Interesting.

Now then, it seems as if you haven't got what Golden Circle is mainly about. It's defences. That it struck you as odd that a 'bg' would start having their members defend one another. Well.. Fine by me.

Golden Circle is a group of friends doing defences primarily. And the occasional attack. Many of the players in there have no alliance. Including myself.

That's funny. I've been invited to it round after round and sometimes joined it, and it was always presented as, "Hey, want to join my attack group?" BTW it's not "the occasional attack," it's 2 attacks per day, every day. And several defenses per day, which always kinda made me scratch my head.

So by your admission, what Gcircle is mainly about is, it does defenses and attacks. Sounds like an alliance to me. Why then do your members have dual membership in other alliances?

[ZoRlaC]

I begin to wonder where you gather your intel. Golden Circle has 2 attacks? Every day? Wow.. Where've I been ? Sorry, but that truly is news to me.

Whereas to why it's been presented as an 'attack group' I do not know. We've been a defence group ever since we got formed. Which was back in r4.

Where we all were in p25 and fought against 2e5. Whereas 'fought' meant 'tried to defend against'.

However, you are correct.

What Gcircle is mainly about is defences and *the occasional* attack (I'm not going to move away from that). The members of which we have that are part of another alliance has no problem in meeting the requirements of their own alliance aswell as the defence we require.

You should be aware of one thing tho. This is r 9.5. R10 will *HAVE* to be completely different because of spinners alliance intergration.

It could mean the death of 'bg's as they are now.

Anyway.. now I'm really off :P

[The_Fish]

I have to disagree, if a member from my alliance has incs then I'll def him with just as much enthusiasm as if a Dragon has incs, unless its a massive Dragon battle, then I'll throw my fleet at the planet that wants it.

It's all on an individual basis, its not what Dragons try to do, believe it or not

[Parthos]

Originally posted by ZoRlaC
I begin to wonder where you gather your intel. Golden Circle has 2 attacks? Every day? Wow.. Where've I been ? Sorry, but that truly is news to me.

Depends on how you define intel. I don't know if I would call being a member for much of this round and for parts of several previous rounds "intel" so much as "firsthand knowledge". Is being a member, joining the channels daily, and seeing and joining in the 2 daily attacks enough intel?

Though actually, continually insisting you don't do many attacks actually supports this thread's thesis more, so I will stop correcting you

Originally posted by ZoRlaC

What Gcircle is mainly about is defences and *the occasional* attack (I'm not going to move away from that). The members of which we have that are part of another alliance has no problem in meeting the requirements of their own alliance aswell as the defence we require.

You should probably stop digging that hole now, it's about deep enough.

[CamelToe]

Originally posted by WhiteSnake
Dragons, OuZo, Critters, MPT, GC, DTA, from what I remember, do attacks and defenses. PA players found a way to get out of that "exclusive alliances" rules. These battle groups work like alliances, and many members give more attention to their battle groups than to their alliances.

Documented in the Plush Rules
Defense: We are now an attack group, defense will be called with you're own alliance. If you feel the need to ask for defense on Plush channels please make sure you seek @ assistance first.

We monitor our members (i.e the occasional newsie during the night) in case we have to pass on defense calls to their alliances (if they arent in Oly), but other than that... defense from plush is a last resort.

[Denniz]

Originally posted by CamelToe
We monitor our members (i.e the occasional newsie during the night) in case we have to pass on defense calls to their alliances (if they arent in Oly), but other than that... defense from plush is a last resort.

I think thats still sux.
Those members will only attack with their alliance if they can get an easier target there. Kinda means they are only a def drain for their alliance. Their alliance loses some attack power cuz several members start attack with their bg's.
I saw it this round also happen a few times that ppl dropped targets, cuz members of their bg were in the target gal or that they leak the target if they find out ppl from their bg are in it.
Thats kinda sad to see that they have more loyalty to their bg then to their alliance.

[Supernova9]

Originally posted by ZoRlaC
Interesting.

Now then, it seems as if you haven't got what Golden Circle is mainly about. It's defences. That it struck you as odd that a 'bg' would start having their members defend one another. Well.. Fine by me.

Golden Circle is a group of friends doing defences primarily. And the occasional attack. Many of the players in there have no alliance. Including myself.

Further more, It's late, and I'm 5minutes away from getting in a car to denmark. So I won't get to read your reply

Have a nice remaining summer

Btw; Sorry what happened earlier Parthos. Although I'm not aware of the circumstances.

- Zorlac

So what stops it being an alliance instead of a BG?

[Desse]

Originally posted by Denniz
I think thats still sux.
Those members will only attack with their alliance if they can get an easier target there. Kinda means they are only a def drain for their alliance. Their alliance loses some attack power cuz several members start attack with their bg's.

Plush is Oly Controlled.

We demand that our members participate in BG´s controlled by Oly.

There is off course the odd member out, but more than 90% are in a BG controlled by Oly, who take their targets from oly.

[Scouse]

Originally posted by Parthos
You shouldn't have . I'm one of Scouse's biggest critics, having reported him for using 'brother' escorts in r8 and constantly harping on that fact (it seems fact to me thanks to numerous news scans at the time but I have to admit he was never closed for it). But when I see a good point made, I don't hold grudges and give credit where it's due

Hehe. I never claimed he was my brother. My brother did play that round but he was GC of his galaxy and finished about 50% of his galaxy score (40m ++).


Anyway, if I ran an alliance now I'd not allow external BG's. In round 8 we had Plush as our only external BG, and they were great. I think it's got worse nowadays with BG's. The problem arrises when people become more loyal to their BG than their alliance, which isn't a problem I think Titans/Plush had. Most were Titans, those that wern't understand that it was a mutual benefit relationship.


I had my own BG in round 8 containing only Titans members, and it worked wonders. If they are ran correctly in right manner, with alliance command as BG command, and people understand the point of the BG, then they are completely worth it.


So all in all Parthos, I think you're completely right in what you said, a lot of BG's are taking the piss. However, I believe next round alliances will become tougher on BG's, and of course, they can't operate the same, as all members of BG's will have to be in the same alliance together to defend each other.

BG's looking for fame away from the main alliance shows how bad the situation has become now.

[Cicada]

Originally posted by Scouse


I had my own BG in round 8 containing only Titans members, and it worked wonders. If they are ran correctly in right manner, with alliance command as BG command, and people understand the point of the BG, then they are completely worth it.

thats because f.e.a.r > *

[Mistwraith]

As a founder member of the ban external battle groups from alliances party from r8 (tho i've been detractor of them since their inception)... welcome to the idea people who agree... pity it took u so long to realise tho.

External BG's are a cancer to alliances, their bad points far outweigh their good and i dont doubt they can be traced back to the deaths of some of the alliances in the game over the past rounds (of course there are other reasons as well, but BG's certainly didnt help).

[Yaroslav]

Originally posted by ZoRlaC

What Gcircle is mainly about is defences and *the occasional* attack

A defensive battlegroup, now I have seen all

[Hala]

Dragons have certinally raised the profile of the power that BGs can wield with their NAP with LDK this round... I imagine some of the alliances that were hostile to LDK in the last half of the round were somewhat annoyed that quite a few of their larger members could not assist in their conflict because of them being in Dragons heh.

[djcomplex]

Originally posted by das_experiment

And in relation to z0r. I attacked with you people a few times in r7, and u were really first class.

Great leadeship, good attacks, and it all was coordinated and set up very well.(prime example of a good BG)

amen to that z0r was a fantastic group of guys

[JonnyBGood]

With the decreasing size of the playerbase, the end of most of the old, strict alliances and the longevity of the game Planetarion has become polarised around groups of people more than it has around specific alliances. The increasing influence of BGs is solely due to the fact that HCs can no longer dictate the way their members play. Of course with r10 around the corner one hopes that something will be introduced which can actually change the game dynamics.

[Yaroslav]

In my opinion the reason for the existance of battlegroups is the desire of a lot of people of being in charge of something. Ths most funny part in playing planetarion is organizing some group doing something, organizing a defence, an attack, a galaxy, a nap, whatever. The game itself is quite simple (scan-attack-scan-attack-defend..), and as there are a lot of hardcore players in planetarion they feel with the need of doing something more complex than clicking buttons when their BC, MO, DC.. says them to do so.

For these hardcore players-wanting to make impact on the game the easest way is setting up a battlegroup (there are zillions of them), where they will be the HC, far more easy than becoming an HC of an established alliance (are there 40 of those guys in all game?)

[skipper]

Originally posted by Lupin
depends of the battle group i think

[Lord_Thunderball]

The way I run my BG was the following:

Attack with us...

Defends.. Run to your alliance, occasionally people asked in our channel for some defence, but normally they wouldn't.

I didn't run a Full Eclipse BG, 60% of the people where. All none Eclipse people where loyal friends, which wouldn't **** over there own attacks.

They knew they where hitting Eclipse targets, and that wasn't a problem for them(most of the time).

I expect that every member of my BG also obey's allliance rulez, one of them is sending defence(I hope). So I expect them to do that, and have no doubt they didn't.

Imho any BG that got a DC is already an alliance, cause defence shouldn't be coordinated in a BG. Every member that is part of that kinda BG, should leave his alliance... He is selfish, and no plus for the alliance, therefor could be missed.

An alliance who like these kinda BG's is stupid imho..
This kinda stuff sounds more like the old wing structure, where def/att where run on there own.

[booji]

Originally posted by WhiteSnake
Dragons, OuZo, Critters, MPT, GC, DTA, from what I remember, do attacks and defenses. PA players found a way to get out of that "exclusive alliances" rules. These battle groups work like alliances, and many members give more attention to their battle groups than to their alliances.

hmm I have been a member of OuZo since r6, and tbh I have never concidered it a battlegroup, too me it has been my ONLY alliance, I joined it because I wanted an informal alliance (which is what they really are, and at the time they were just a group of friends) because at the time I was also in a n00bie alliance.

My point is I dont think that OuZo has ever claimed to be a battlegroup, it would be difficult when this round they have had 2 battlegroups in them, xraiders and corona, I dont think OuZo itself ever does attacks. and I am sure alot of the other smaller ppl in OuZo have tended to regard OuZo as our primary alliance (we probably drive everyone else crazy asking for def if they all regard it as a battlegroup ) Thus i would conclude that OuZo itself has generaly been (for me at least) primarly for def rather than attack.

[Zh|l]

I have hated so called Battlegroups since round 5 when T&P attempted to use 'influence' to affect Wrath central decisions. I was very willing to stomp on them if they went too far with me.

[Lord_Olrik]

not alliance controlled are a big problem these days but as zhil pointed out compared to the influence big galcoops like t&p and bull had back in the old days its a minor issue.

[WhiteSnake]

Originally posted by Zh|l
I have hated so called Battlegroups since round 5 when T&P attempted to use 'influence' to affect Wrath central decisions. I was very willing to stomp on them if they went too far with me.

we had the same problem with RedBull rounds 6 and 7, they wanting to defend only inside bull and attack only with bulls...

/me looks at Olrik

[Lord_Olrik]

hehe /me pokes ws
but iirc correctly we had ministry not wanting to defend the rest of xanadu anymore during r7 as well. strong bgroups/galcoops are and advantage for alliances in terms of attack power and ranking ofc therefor they want something (influence on politics, better targets, etc) in return.
every alliance can chose if they want to do this 'trade' or not.

[Vancouver]

Hello Parthos.

GoldenCircle was never just an attack BG. If you say you were member in many previous rounds you should know that.
Not that I remember you ever beeing an active member of us in any round but oh well.

As Zorlac already said we were born as a para alliance in r4. After that we were a sister gal alliance from r5-7. In a sister gal alliance it IS the sense to defend the gals beeing in that group. What else sense would make a sister gal ally ?
After r7 we disbanded because many of our long time member left.

In r9.5 we decided to come back because many of those old members came back to us.

Now I come to some things I want to point out.

The people that came back were of course all allianceless. PA and these boards first of all always complain about PA beeing no fun to the ppl not beeing in big alliances.
Well we had fun this round. And I doubt you can have fun when you get incomings and never have a chance to get this covered.

Yes I admit we did of course acted like a full scale alliance.
We had regular attacks each night and we have ppl that coordinate our defenses.

But to say that 2 big alliances, namely ToT and Fury/Eclise had no advantage out of us is just not true.

Since many many rounds we fight on the side of these 2 alliances. We take targets from their attack lists. We take targets on requests of their officers/HC's. We even sent defense to ToT & Fury/Eclipse members that did not belong to us on requests of our tot/fury/ecl members.
In previous rounds we had ToT BC's organising our attacks and in r9.5 we had an Ecl MO who organised our attacks.

Also you should see that our ToT/Ecl member got some good defense from us that did not get soacked up from these 2 alliances and could be used for other members.

And where did this defense come from ? Yes from unallied people and even from 'hostile' members when there was no problem. People that never asked but trusted us beeing in ToT/Fury/Ecl that their fleets will be used in a good way.

So we have on the one side defense for tot/fury/ecl from non-mebers regularly wherever we could help, attacking targets whenever possible and wherever they need help and not getting back defense from them for our non-tot/fury/ecl.
On the other side we send some few less defense fleets to our alliances.

That makes a lot of people that do not 'belong' to ToT nor Fury/Ecl but play since many rounds for their goals without having a problem with that ever.

I wonder if you can call that an unfair behaviour from us. And yes in my eyes the 'drain' of defense was more than worth for those alliances.

PS1: About that attack on your gal. As far as I know it was no planed attack from us. It was just 1 member attacking your gal getting that target from another source.

PS2: If you would have been that active with us than you say you were should have known what we expect from our members. Because it was spamed all over.


Vanc
GoldenCircle
#gcircle

[Pwhite]

As zorlac said Gcircle for quite a few people is an alliance in itself. It suceeded where other alliances didn't by working closely with other alliances (such as tot and virus a couple of rounds ago).

Things turned this round with gals being split randomly and alliances which were friendly now fighting each other. This forced gcircle to become more of its own alliance which luckily worked very well thx to an active core of members.

My point is that gcircle started as a parallel alliance, moved towards being one of these so called battlegroups (prolly one of the first) but this round its clearly emerged as an alliance.

What gcircle does best is defend which is why it is so sucessful.

[Mistwraith]

the point everyone fails to miss is that a good few of the present older alliances were started as battlegroups, maybe the name wasnt invented back in r2 or 3, but they were the start, those alliances that have let their members join them, allowed them to dictate their actions are basically allowing fledgling alliances to grow in their midst, then seem astounded when they split from them causing havoc in their wake.

Its only a battle group is a common cry...

there is no such thing as "only a bg" they have been more destructive to the alliances than the cheating and p2p, but its taken this long for everyone to realise it.

[velcrome]

Originally posted by Pookie
there is no such thing as "only a bg" they have been more destructive to the alliances than the cheating and p2p, but its taken this long for everyone to realise it.

alliances are important, but they are not everything. if bg's are able to add some spice to the game, why not support them? why is it bad, if i enjoy working with ppl that i have known for rounds, even if they went their own way along the track? why is it bad to defend ppl you like, even if they are not your alliance?

I have seen quite a few bg's from the inside, pure and mixed ones, and tbh i liked the mixed ones more, because their members knew and cared for each other in a way, that no single full blown alliance can ever achieve. Simply because its easier to accomplish things like that in a tight-knit group of 30-50 members max.

my point is, bg's might be not the best thing that ever happened to alliances, but it is certainly a good thing happening to the game itself: taking at least a little grain of power from the alliances back to every daring individual.

velcrome
[ToT]
[GCircle]

[n4m3l355]

as far as i know BG's are no harm at all
i organise myself since R1 attacks and as Retalion started as early as in R3 i organised every attack there to for several galls

as target picker i always checkup coords by several arbis so i know i dont hit anything familiar as its quite sure if you target an ally from someone he will say so to that certain ally so then the attack is blown.
as for defense BG members only defend theirself & via friends or by their own alliance.. whats wrong with that? it saves alliance resources

[kyrealean]

battlegroups are alliances.... not big alliances, not "official" alliances but alliances all the same.


u can sugar coat it all you want.

whats the purpose of an alliance? to organize groups of players together for the purpose of domination.


Its high time for all you Alliance HC's out there to rethink your policy because power isnt in the "true" alliance hands, its in the hands of the various BG's. they control your military firepower and feed off the inactives, the scanners, the casual alliance players for their defenses.


Round 10 will be very interesting to say the least. just how will alliances handle when their various best and most active players decide their Battlegroup shall become an alliance within the game.......

[BDB]

Originally posted by WhiteSnake
we had the same problem with RedBull rounds 6 and 7, they wanting to defend only inside bull and attack only with bulls...

/me looks at Olrik

hehe poor bull i think in rnd 7my galxey and m&s killed off most the bull galxeys

[BDB]

Originally posted by Vancouver
Hello Parthos.

GoldenCircle was never just an attack BG. If you say you were member in many previous rounds you should know that.
Not that I remember you ever beeing an active member of us in any round but oh well.

As Zorlac already said we were born as a para alliance in r4. After that we were a sister gal alliance from r5-7. In a sister gal alliance it IS the sense to defend the gals beeing in that group. What else sense would make a sister gal ally ?
After r7 we disbanded because many of our long time member left.

In r9.5 we decided to come back because many of those old members came back to us.

Now I come to some things I want to point out.

The people that came back were of course all allianceless. PA and these boards first of all always complain about PA beeing no fun to the ppl not beeing in big alliances.
Well we had fun this round. And I doubt you can have fun when you get incomings and never have a chance to get this covered.

Yes I admit we did of course acted like a full scale alliance.
We had regular attacks each night and we have ppl that coordinate our defenses.

But to say that 2 big alliances, namely ToT and Fury/Eclise had no advantage out of us is just not true.

Since many many rounds we fight on the side of these 2 alliances. We take targets from their attack lists. We take targets on requests of their officers/HC's. We even sent defense to ToT & Fury/Eclipse members that did not belong to us on requests of our tot/fury/ecl members.
In previous rounds we had ToT BC's organising our attacks and in r9.5 we had an Ecl MO who organised our attacks.

Also you should see that our ToT/Ecl member got some good defense from us that did not get soacked up from these 2 alliances and could be used for other members.

And where did this defense come from ? Yes from unallied people and even from 'hostile' members when there was no problem. People that never asked but trusted us beeing in ToT/Fury/Ecl that their fleets will be used in a good way.

So we have on the one side defense for tot/fury/ecl from non-mebers regularly wherever we could help, attacking targets whenever possible and wherever they need help and not getting back defense from them for our non-tot/fury/ecl.
On the other side we send some few less defense fleets to our alliances.

That makes a lot of people that do not 'belong' to ToT nor Fury/Ecl but play since many rounds for their goals without having a problem with that ever.

I wonder if you can call that an unfair behaviour from us. And yes in my eyes the 'drain' of defense was more than worth for those alliances.

PS1: About that attack on your gal. As far as I know it was no planed attack from us. It was just 1 member attacking your gal getting that target from another source.

PS2: If you would have been that active with us than you say you were should have known what we expect from our members. Because it was spamed all over.


Vanc
GoldenCircle
#gcircle

pfff never even heard of u guys till this round and thats only cause i had one in p

[BDB]

to sum it up unless an allince controls a BG { ie plush rnd 8 } with titans
the allince is just def bitchs for that BG plain and simple

[planet37]

wtf does DTA actually mean? :/

[BDB]

Originally posted by planet37
wtf does DTA actually mean? :/

ask your momma